Preamble

The House met at half-past Nine o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

Gold Sales

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Betts.]

Sir Peter Tapsell: I am glad to have the opportunity to initiate a debate on the proposed sale by the Bank of England of more than half of this country's gold reserves. That decision was announced by the Treasury on 7 May and has been widely and critically discussed in the financial press, but the Government have been strangely reluctant to defend it or explain it in any detail to the House.
I should start by making it clear that I have no personal financial interest in the value of gold. I have never purchased any gold bullion, gold sovereigns or shares in any gold mining company for myself, and I have no connection with any mining company or any part of the jewellery trade. However, I have always taken a keen academic interest in the economic role of gold, which has been of importance in every society in recorded history.
In the 1980s, in my capacity as a stockbroker, I was required for some years to manage a gold bullion fund, valued at many hundreds of millions of dollars, for the previous Sultan of Brunei, Sir Omar Saifuddin. I was therefore able to add practical knowledge of the gold bullion market to my academic and political studies of it.
I regard the decision to sell 415 of the 715 tonnes of our gold reserves as a reckless act, which goes against Britain's national interest. The sale of that crucial element of the United Kingdom's reserve assets will weaken our scope to operate independently, reduce our influence in international financial institutions and diminish the United Kingdom as a world financial power.
I shall briefly set out eight of my main reasons for opposing the decision. Later in my speech, I shall expand on some of those and add a few more. First, a move such as the one announced on 7 May was always likely to destabilise the gold price, as Britain is a leading G7 country whose example is likely to influunce0othur countries and because it was not expected to sell gold. Market sentiment has become overwhelmingly negative and the price has collapsed from $287 per fine ounce immediately before the announcement to $259 at the fix yesterday—a fall of 10 per cent. That has reduced the value of our gold reserves in a little over a month by about $650 million, from $6.5 billion to $5.85 billion at current prices. The Chancellor's announcement has so far cost this country's taxpayers over £400 million, which is more than the cost to us of the Kosovo war.
Secondly, the decision reduces our monetary independence. For a country to hold gold is always and everywhere seen as an affirmation of independence and monetary sovereignty. We are told that the decision is not connected with preparations for joining the euro, but if we were to join—the Treasury has said that 40 per cent. of the proceeds from those gold sales will be invested in the euro—and if the euro were then to collapse or we were obliged to leave in the future, the absence of significant gold reserves would make it much more difficult to establish the credibility of any new currency that we had to set up.
Thirdly, the decision smacks of short-termism. In their foreign reserve policy, Governments and central banks are supposed to act in the long-term interests of their country. It is true that on a short-term view, gold has not performed well purely as an investment in the past 20 years, but that reflects mainly the success, which is possibly temporary, of central banks in controlling inflation. No Government can be sure that price stability will endure for ever.
Fourthly, the decision is a threat to the London gold market because it reduces the Bank's ability to act as what is known as a swing lender to the market. Many market participants believe that after the sales have been completed, the Bank will not have enough gold to fulfil its function as a swing lender and so retain the centre of the world gold market in London.
Fifthly, about 20 per cent. of the proceeds are to be invested in yen—so the Treasury tells us. Yet, by lending gold we could earn a better return, as the rate of interest on gold is higher than that on yen investments. I have already mentioned that 40 per cent. is to be invested in euros, yet we hear that the Netherlands is already taking steps to build up its foreign reserves to protect the guilder if the euro were to collapse.

Mr. Robert Sheldon: The hon. Gentleman said that the interest earned on gold was greater than that on other foreign assets—

Sir Peter Tapsell: On yen.

Mr. Sheldon: I did not understand that; I am not sure what the interest on gold is.

Sir Peter Tapsell: The deposit rate in Japan at the moment is about 0.5 per cent., and the normal interest rate on gold is l per cent., which is double.
Sixthly, the concept of reserve management that lies behind the decision is deeply flawed. The Treasury has argued that gold makes up almost half of the unhedged or "net reserves", to quote its press release. That concept of net reserves is arbitrary, as it all depends on what liabilities are deducted from gross assets. So far as I have been able to discover, such a concept has never been used by any other country; international gold figures are always quoted in terms of gross reserves. After the sale of 415 million tonnes of our gold, as is intended—125 million tonnes straight away and 290 million tonnes in the medium term—our gold reserves will be only 7 per cent. of our gross reserves, which is slightly less than those of Albania.
Seventhly, the history of the past 50 years shows again and again that United Kingdom Governments have from time to time been forced to intervene, either to stop the


pound rising too quickly or, more frequently, to try to slow a fall in the pound. It makes no sense to throw away a key element of that instrument. No other major country is doing so. In relation to imports, our reserves are already far smaller than those of comparable countries.
Eighthly, in the view of many leading bullion dealers, the method of sale chosen—auctions—is also ill advised. Whatever the merits of transparency, the UK taxpayer has certainly lost substantially from the drop in the price consequent on the announcement and the resulting fall in the expected proceeds from gold sales. Each bi-monthly auction of our gold—the first of which will be held as soon as 6 July—is likely to worsen that problem.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Given the great criticism of the introduction of gilt auctions, which have turned out to be successful, and given that the Government have decided to sell the gold, does my hon. Friend think that there is a better method of selling it than by auction?

Sir Peter Tapsell: I did say that there was a problem about transparency. When examined on the problem of method of sale by a committee in Congress the other day, Mr. Greenspan said that it was very unsatisfactory. Incidentally, he is completely against selling gold. He said that, whereas Mr. Buffet could buy silver, and when the report came out three months later that the price of silver that he had been buying had risen, he could sell his silver at a profit, Mr. Greenspan did not think that major central banks should proceed along those lines. That is of course the problem and why, no doubt, the Bank of England has found it necessary to announce to the world that it will keep selling every other month. The penalty one pays for that—for psychological reasons mainly—is a substantial fall in the gold price.
In giving evidence to the Treasury Select Committee recently, our governor said that the fall in the price of gold had been greater than he had anticipated and he thought it to have been overdone. The authorities should have foreseen that the psychological impact of the Bank of England, of all institutions, announcing that it would take such a course of action, would be very adverse on prices.
That brings me to comment on the historical background. The argument about gold has gone on for centuries. The Bank of England was founded in the reign of King Charles II and, as early as 1717, it decided to put our reserves into gold. That was done, interestingly, on the advice of Sir Isaac Newton, who was born and brought up in Grantham in Lincolnshire—my home county. It is very appropriate that my hon. Friend the Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies), whom I congratulate on his promotion, should today be sitting on the Opposition Front Bench.
Sir Isaac Newton, Lincolnshire's most famous son—the county has had a famous daughter since, but I shall pass over that rather more controversial point—proposed that, in effect, the Bank of England should put its reserves into gold. The matter was debated at length in the House of Commons and was approved, only after great controversy, in December 1717. Thereafter, many other central banks and other countries argued about whether they would put their reserves into gold, silver, a mixture

of the two, or some other form. People have often forgotten that the great economic debate of the second half of the 19th century all over the western world was over bimetallism—in effect whether a country ought to have its reserves in gold or silver.
That debate culminated in the presidential election of 1896—the most ferociously fought and perhaps most famous of all American presidential elections, which centred on whether the United States should put its reserves entirely into gold or a mixture of gold and silver. At the Democratic convention of 1896 in Chicago, William Jennings Bryan made his famous two-hour speech on the subject, in which he used the phrase about mankind not being crucified on a cross of gold—one of the greatest speeches ever made. But William Jennings Bryan lost the presidential election by 500,000 votes, and William McKinley, the pro-gold winning candidate, ensured that the United States shortly thereafter went on to the gold standard. The Federal Reserve Board was originally established to look after the gold.
I mention all that—there is a great deal more to it; many histories of the period have been written in economic terms—to show that what we are discussing is of immense importance and has always been regarded as such. We tend in our debates in this House to think only of more recent events, such as Britain's return to a gold link in 1925, our retreat from it in 1931, the American abandonment of a fixed relationship between gold and the dollar in 1971 and about whether, today, Britain should join the single European currency—the arguments over which are very closely related to those I have been describing. It is very significant that, as recently as last Thursday, the British people were, in effect, being asked to vote on matters closely related to the subject of this debate.

Sir Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend think that the whole business of the instruction given to the Bank of England to switch from gold largely into euros is simply a pathetic attempt—a device—to give credibility to, and boost the value of, the Euroflop currency?

Sir Peter Tapsell: I said that I thought that that was one of the possibilities. It is certainly among those that commentators have discussed. I have never been an advocate of the conspiracy theory of history, and I tend to think that slightly more complicated issues are involved than that, but I shall return to the issue of the relationship with the euro.
The point of my remarks about the history of the issue and the fact that it has been passionately argued about for centuries, was to show the amazing contrast with the almost furtive way in which the announcement was made on 7 May. One might have expected that the Chancellor of the Exchequer would make the announcement at the Dispatch Box—but far from it. The announcement came on a Friday afternoon, in answer to a planted written question by the hon. Member for Hove (Mr. Caplin), who is not even in the Chamber today, and who has not yet had time to establish himself in the House as a leading authority on international monetary affairs. It seems extraordinary that it should have been done in that way.
Moreover, the written answer given by the Economic Secretary to the Treasury—who I am glad to see in her place—was extremely cursory and brief, and contained


only a very small part of the story. As is characteristic of the present Government, the information was contained in two press releases, each several pages long, one from the Treasury and one from the Bank of England, giving a great deal of information about the Government's intentions—vastly more than was given in the written answer—and then press conferences were held at which many questions were answered. The House of Commons was sidelined again, on this very important issue. For those reasons, the way in which the announcement was handled was disgraceful.
The immediate effect has been the loss of £400 million of our taxpayers' reserves, and so far the only beneficiaries of this event have been the foreign finance houses, which have been shorting the gold market. As I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) in all friendliness, I am not a subscriber to the conspiracy theory in any aspect of life, so I shall not go into detail about the conspiracy theories that are widely circulating in the City about that shorting of the gold market, but it is often said that some of those famous foreign finance houses have shorted gold to a huge amount—vastly greater than the tonnage of sales contemplated by the Bank of England—and that it was therefore vital for them for the gold price to fall substantially so that they could close their positions and take huge profits. I do not know whether that is true, although I think that there is no doubt that several finance houses have been shorting gold in a very large amount, so I suspect that the financial press will pursue that point with vigour in the days and weeks to come.
Everyone remembers how Mr. Soros precipitated the last Russian economic collapse by publicly declaring that, in his view, the rouble was overvalued. Not long after, he said that his funds had lost $800 million as a result of that collapse in the Russian market. I do not know whether our Chancellor has been inspired by Mr. Soros to follow in that path, but he seems to have produced a somewhat similar effect.
I have the greatest respect for the Bank of England, and it is perfectly clear that the Bank did not take the decision. I doubt whether it even favours it. It was given an instruction by the Treasury and when, at the press conference, a Bank of England spokesman was asked by a journalist whether the Bank thought that this was a good idea, that spokesman replied:
It was a political decision.
I hope that, when the Economic Secretary replies, she will—as has not yet been done—give us all the reasons for this political decision, because the Bank of England, despite its many merits, has not always been clever at playing the market, and Governments in general are not usually very clever at playing markets. The last time that the Bank of England sold gold in sizeable quantities was in 1971, at about $40 per fine ounce. The price of gold then rocketed, reaching a peak of $850 by 1980. So when the Bank of England last sold gold, it did so at the worst possible time, and I do not know whether anyone has ever worked out the extent to which the British taxpayer was deprived of profits by that decision.
I strongly suspect that the Bank of England is now again selling at pretty near the bottom of the bear market—or what would have been the bottom if it had not made its announcement. As I said in my personal declaration of non-interest, I have never owned gold,

but in recent weeks, as the gold price has declined, I have said jocularly to friends that, if I won the national lottery, I would put half the proceeds into gold bullion with the price below $300. I believe that many people who have followed these matters with interest were thinking that it was about time that the finance houses closed their short position. It is extraordinary, as a matter of market judgment, that the Treasury and Bank of England should have chosen this very sensitive moment to step in and deal that damaging blow to market confidence.
The answer that other countries have given is extremely interesting. We have not really been told the Government's reasons for their sale, but on 26 May the Prime Minister, in answer to a question by my hon. Friend the Member for Macclesfield (Mr. Winterton), said that
throughout the world countries have been selling gold in order to diversify their reserves."—[Official Report, 26 May 1999; Vol. 332, c. 351.]
That is really the only ministerial statement that has been made, and that was elicited by an omnibus question by my hon. Friend.
The Prime Minister's answer was most misleading, as I shall show. Of the more than 100 countries that hold gold, only five, with relatively small economies, have sold. No other major economy has sold gold or intends to sell it. It must be borne in mind that the losses imposed on the British taxpayer by the Chancellor's decision have also been suffered by the French, German, Italian and American taxpayers. I cannot imagine that, when the Governor of the Bank of England next attends a cocktail party in Basle for the monthly meeting of the Bank for International Settlements, he will be the most popular chap there.

Mr. Christopher Gill: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Several times he has instanced the potential loss to British taxpayers as a result of the Bank of England selling its gold reserves. I understand that point and entirely agree with him. However, is there not another consideration? Gold and money are a store of value. If, by selling gold, the Bank of England put that value into another currency that seems unlikely to preserve the store of value for British taxpayers, would that not have a doubly deleterious effect on taxpayers' funds, first by making a loss on the transaction, and secondly by investing the proceeds in a currency where the store of value will not be retained?

Sir Peter Tapsell: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. I shall deal with that point later, as I intend to make a fairly comprehensive speech about gold. The point about gold, as my hon. Friend says, is that it is no one else's liability. As soon as one puts money into other stores of credit, other factors are at work.
I return to the Prime Minister's claim that so many other countries were selling gold. No major country is planning to sell gold, and other countries must be extremely irritated by the way in which the British Government have handled the matter. A series of central bank governors of major countries have issued similar statements on the subject. For example, on 19 May the governor of the Bank of France, Mr. Jean-Claude Trichet, said:
I will simply say that as far as I am aware—and this is not just the position of the Bank of France and our country, but also the position of the Bundesbank, the Bank of Italy and of the United States, and these are the four main gold stocks in the world—the position is not to sell gold.


The chairman of the US Federal Reserve bank, Mr. Greenspan, speaking to the House banking committee in Washington the following day, 20 May—there was obviously co-ordination between the central bank governors—said:
We should hold our gold. Gold still represents the ultimate form of payment in the world. Germany in 1944 could buy materials during the war only with gold. Fiat money in extremis is accepted by nobody. Gold is always accepted.
Those were the words of Mr. Greenspan, the world's most admired central bank governor. That takes up exactly the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill). It is therefore not open to Ministers to say, as the Prime Minister said, that countries of our standing in the world are all selling gold.

Mr. Edward Davey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. Will he confirm that the average annual sales of gold by national central banks across the world over the past decade has averaged 300 tonnes a year—almost three times the amount that the Bank of England proposes to sell?

Sir Peter Tapsell: That is perfectly true, but the holdings of gold by central banks are only 6 per cent. lower now than they were 20 years ago. Other central banks, such as those of Russia and China, have been buying gold. It ic perfectly true that the amount of gold that the Bank of England is selling is relatively small, but the psychological impact on the market is disproportionate.
The Bank of England was the bank that set the lead. Together with Rothschilds and Mocatta, it has always been at the centre of the world gold market ever since 1717. When the Bank of England says that it is selling gold, the tonnage that it is selling is less significant than the psychological impact of that on the rest of the world.
It is true that five countries—Australia, Canada, Argentina, Belgium and the Netherlands—have each sold more than 100 tonnes of gold in recent years, but in no case have those countries done so to diversify their reserves or to increase the technical efficiency of their management. They have all had other reasons.
It would take far too long for me to go into detail about the position in each country, but briefly, Australia sold because there was a mineral price slump in the world at the time and it had an economic crisis. In any case, Australia has very large quantities of gold underground, not yet dug up, so it does not have to worry too much about its gold reserves above ground.
Canada, which also has very large quantities of gold underground, sold in preparation for joining the North Atlantic Free Trade Agreement at a time when its currency was under pressure. Argentina has a currency board-type arrangement, which is quite different from a central bank, and is in effect part of the dollar area, so the considerations about gold that would be important to other central banks do not apply. Belgium sold in order to satisfy the debt:GDP ratio criteria in the Maastricht treaty.
The Netherlands is widely believed to be concerned about the possibility that the euro may collapse entirely. It was interesting that the new president of the European central bank, who is a distinguished former governor of

the Dutch central bank, went so far as to say publicly the other day that he thought, and had so advised, that the euro was introduced two years too early. The Dutch, who have traditionally run a strong and successful currency since the war, are extremely concerned about the euro. It is said that they have been trying to build up foreign reserves outside the euro, in case the euro collapses.
I shall deal now with the question why central banks should hold gold. I hope that the Minister will reply particularly to these points. It is not just a few of us specialists in the House who are interested. I assure her that the markets generally are extremely interested in the subject. I have never received so many messages from total strangers as I have in recent days, since the title of the debate appeared on the Order Paper. The financial press is also very interested. It is time that the Government explained in detail the reasons for their policy.
Why do central banks hold gold? First, as I said to my hon. Friend the Member for Ludlow, because it is no one else's liability. If one invests in the bonds, paper and Treasury bills of other countries, one can suddenly find that one's asset has greatly diminished.
A taxi driver said to me two days after the Government's announcement, "Why are we selling our gold? I don't want to sell my gold and be given toilet paper money in return." That is sound economics. The man in the street may not have read his Keynes, but he has a good grasp of the realities of economics.
If, as the Bank of England proposes to do, it puts 40 per cent. into dollars, 40 per cent. into euros and 20 per cent. into yen as a result of the sale of the gold, it will be speculating. We have seen a tremendous collapse in the yen, and the American dollar has gone up and gone down periodically, so the Bank of England is, in effect, playing the market.
To return to an earlier intervention from my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), the argument about transparency also applies to currencies.
When a currency is under pressure it is difficult for a central bank to start to sell it. It is regarded as near-treachery. When the British and French currencies came under serious pressure in 1992, the US Fed and the Bundesbank were expected to support them, not to sell them. There has been some controversy over whether the Germans supported our currency as vigorously in 1992 as we think they should have done. I think that my noble Friend Lord Lamont has views on that subject, which may come out in his book to be published shortly.
In theory, central banks are supposed to co-operate with each other so that when a particular currency comes under pressure, they rally round to support it. The idea that by diversifying into foreign currencies the British Government will suddenly have much more flexibility is an illusion. I very much doubt whether the Government would like the market to see them selling their newly bought euros because they thought that the euro was about to collapse even further. That would not help the Prime Minister's position in the centre of Europe.

Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: Does my hon. Friend agree that, in selling our precious gold reserves and putting the money into the collapsing euro,


the Government will be showing much more support for the euro than those who belong to it showed support for us in 1992?

Sir Peter Tapsell: Yes, but one should not conduct economic policy on a tit-for-tat basis. Incidentally, we would all be wise not to assume that the euro will continue to weaken for ever. I can speak with a free conscience on this matter, as I voted against every clause of the Maastricht treaty. Indeed, there would never have been a European central bank if three more of my colleagues had joined me and others in voting against the paving motion.
The fact is that the euro now exists and it is just another currency, as I always predicted it would be. Currencies go up as well as down. In my view, the dollar is today over-valued and the euro is under-valued. The fact that in a few weeks or months the euro will probably go up against the dollar and the pound does not strengthen the argument for joining it. Euro-sceptic that I am, I do not believe that it would be in the British national interest for the euro to collapse because that would lead to chaos in Europe and would be damaging for our export markets.
The second reason why one should hold gold reserves is because they build public confidence. Market research carried out last year by one of the world's leading research companies in several European countries showed overwhelming support for countries maintaining gold reserves: 76 per cent. of respondents in France, 72 per cent. in Germany and 75 per cent. in Italy said that gold reserves are important in supporting a strong economy; 84 per cent. in France, 83 per cent. in Italy and 65 per cent. in Germany agreed that having a strong gold reserve helps to bolster public confidence on which economies depend. Similar results—70 per cent. opposing the sale—were received when the British public were questioned on the subject in a recent opinion poll.
Another reason why central banks should hold gold is that, over the very long term, gold maintains its value. In 1900, the value of gold was almost identical to its value in 1717. Although its soaring up to $850 in 1980 artificially over-priced the market—it has been coming down ever since—gold holds its long-term value, as we have seen throughout history. On 27 May, the Financial Times pointed out that $35 an ounce, which was what gold was in 1971 before President Nixon and Treasury Secretary Connally broke the link between the dollar and gold, would be equivalent to $281 today. Thus, despite the fact that gold is at the bottom of a long bear market, it was still worth more than $35, in today's terms, when the Government made their announcement. It has now dropped below that figure.

Mr. Sheldon: It all depends where one takes one's basis. However, $35 an ounce was the price before the war, so the hon. Gentleman must take that as his basis as well.

Sir Peter Tapsell: The right hon. Gentleman is a distinguished former Treasury Minister, but I must point out that that was not the price before the war. The price of $35 an ounce was fixed at Bretton Woods in 1944. In 1932, President Roosevelt devalued the dollar against gold and we devalued, under a Labour Chancellor, in 1931. However, the $35 that was officially linked to gold—which put the whole world not on a gold standard

but on a dollar standard between 1945-71—clates from Bretton Woods. I have not argued that gold has been a particularly good market investment in recent years, but it has not been as bad as many people would suppose. Even since 1971, it has roughly held its value in line with inflation.
My next argument for central banks holding gold is that a country's reserves should be diversified to minimise risk. Research shows that gold is an ideal portfolio diversifier. When I was given the Brunei fund to manage, I had to go on a crash course because I knew nothing about gold management. I took much expert advice and even commissioned, at great expense, advisers to give me an idea of how much gold should be in a portfolio. The boffins who deal with those matters believe that, over a long term, the ideal gold holding in a major portfolio is about 20 per cent. That is because gold is an ideal diversifier as its returns are what is technically known as "negatively correlated", which means that they operate in a counter-cyclical manner. When bonds and equities fall in price, gold tends to go up.
Gold prices are much more volatile than other market prices. It is not unusual for gold to go up 2 or 3 per cent., or down 2 or 3 per cent. in a single day. If Wall street falls by 2 or 3 per cent. in a single day, it is headline news throughout the world. Thus gold has a stabilising effect in a long-term portfolio.
Gold is also the asset of last resort. Although it is needed in good times, it can be vital when times are difficult. The last sale of gold in France was in 1969 to deal with the financial consequences of the May 1968 uprising. In Portugal gold was last sold following the 1975 revolution. More recently, in 1991 India used its gold reserves to borrow $1 billion to avoid default.
I have already quoted Mr. Greenspan, who said that in 1944 Germany could not buy anything except with gold. In a real crisis, there is no doubt that gold is important. It is not just my taxi driver who takes that view. When I was in Vietnam last year, everybody told me that every Vietnamese peasant has gold underneath his floorboards or his straw because the Vietnamese have no confidence in their currency. We tend to talk about gold in terms of official reserves, but a lot of unofficial gold is hidden in China and Vietnam and, one is always told, in France—although I have a French wife and I have not yet managed to discover her gold hoard. It is widely believed that people hold gold all over the world secretly, against the possibility of disaster, which is a tremendously important market consideration. That is what is meant by the psychology of gold and it is extraordinary that the Bank of England should have taken this decision, and the way that they have done so.
I do not wish to go into the question of International Monetary Fund gold sales in any detail, because that is a separate, although obviously related, subject. The IMF is not a central bank. It is ironic that the Chancellor, who is understandably keen to help the poorer nations of the world, seems also to be keen to persuade the IMF to sell gold. He hopes that it will do so, but many poorer countries would be extremely hard hit by that.
Hon. Members who are interested might care to read the recently published pamphlet entitled "Gold mining's importance to sub-Saharan Africa and heavily indebted poor countries", because 41 HIPCs mine gold, and it is an extremely important part of the exports of nine of those


countries. Curiously enough, the sale of IMF gold, if it depressed the price of gold still further, would seriously and adversely affect many of the poorest countries.
The sale of our gold will not increase the size of our reserves; they will remain the same, so that argument cannot be used. Many countries feel that they ought to be building up their reserves, and they are all trying to do so. An extraordinary aspect of the situation is how dangerously low Britain's net reserves are. Their net value on 7 May was only $15 billion. A more sensible policy than selling gold would be to build up our reserves by buying dollars and other currencies with our sterling. That would help to lower the exchange rate of sterling, which is a desirable objective at present, and increase our reserves of foreign currencies, which the sale of gold will not achieve.

Mr. Tyrie: In view of the experience in the 1990s with the huge movements of global capital, does my hon. Friend believe that open market operations are an intelligent way in which to try to alter the value of a currency?

Sir Peter Tapsell: I would not normally take that view, but our long-term economic aim ought to be the building up of our reserves. That is what every country wishes to do, and many of them are pursuing that. Our reserves in relation to our imports are very low, so any step that we can take to build up our reserves will be welcome.
I have mentioned the aspects of pubic opinion. I am not one of those who thinks that one should follow focus groups and so on, but it is overwhelmingly evident that public opinion in this country is opposed to the whole policy of selling gold by 5:2. The Government will have to be persuasive if they are to change that view.
There have been previous attempts to reduce the role of gold in central banks. The last was the introduction of special drawing rights. At that time, I happened to be an adviser to the monetary authority of Singapore. I went to see Dr. Goh Keng Swee, who was then Singapore's Finance Minister and who, in my experience, had the most subtle and brilliant financial mind of any Finance Minister or central bank governor I have ever known. I said to him, "Dr. Goh, will Singapore take SDRs?" Dr. Goh replied, "I have no intention of putting a paper tiger into Singapore's tank." That is a slogan worth keeping in mind.
The whole point about gold, and the quality that makes it so special and almost mystical in its appeal, is that it is universal, eternal and almost indestructible. The Minister will agree that it is also beautiful. The most enduring brand slogan of all time is, "As good as gold." The scientists can clone sheep, and may soon be able to clone humans, but they are still a long way from being able to clone gold, although they have been trying to do so for 10,000 years. The Chancellor may think that he has discovered a new Labour version of the alchemist's stone, but his dollars, yen and euros will not always glitter in a storm and they will never be mistaken for gold.

Mr. Edward Davey: I congratulate the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) on keeping to a fairly balanced view when he developed the theory of the role of gold in a modern economy. However, I disagree with his conclusions.
In answer to my intervention, the hon. Gentleman talked about the psychological importance of this sale of gold and explained the psychological role of gold in monetary economics. He was right to focus on that, because gold's main contribution in the modern monetary economy is that it is, at the last resort, the store of value and the provider of assistance in underpinning market confidence. However, many other commodities and assets retain value for investors, businesses and Governments and there are many other ways of maintaining market confidence in a modern economy, from regulation to the lessons of history.
At the end of this century, many participants in the financial markets—and in all product and labour markets, for that matter—have much greater confidence in the ability of capitalism and financial capitalism to deliver success. That was not the case centuries ago, when gold made a much more important psychological contribution. The lesson of history is that we do not need gold to underpin confidence and value. The role played by gold has been declining, which means that the hon. Gentleman's point about its psychological contribution is much less strong today.
I completely agree with the hon. Gentleman that, in the past, gold was absolutely vital—in the early days of financial capitalism, it was crucial—but the role that he wishes to attribute to it is not as strong as he suggests.

Mr. Gill: Does the hon. Gentleman think that these matters should have been discussed in the House before the decision to sell was made, given that money has been put aside in reserves by the taxpayer? The taxpayer clearly has a view, as my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) explained in his excellent presentation. There is also the question whether the taxpayer feels that that store of value, which belongs to him, has been preserved by putting the proceeds of the sale of gold into other investments. Does the hon. Gentleman think that the House should have been granted a debate on these important matters before the Government took the decision to sell the gold?

Mr. Davey: I do not agree with the hon. Gentleman about that. One of the criticisms that can be made of the Government is that they were too open and transparent about the sale of the gold, and that that has moved the market price. I do not subscribe to the criticism that has been made of the Bank of England's approach, because I think that the way in which it has set out these sales over the next 12 months will help to bring order and stability to the gold market, which, as has been said, is characterised by volatility.
The hon. Member for Ludlow (Mr. Gill) tempts me a little. The problem with the House is that we do not analysis Government expenditure in enough detail. The House grants £300 billion to £350 billion of public expenditure without full debate. We should scrutinise the Government on that expenditure: not on technical gold sales. There is a strong argument for not having a full debate on gold sales, because that could move markets.
The role of gold can be overplayed. That is not to say that gold markets are not important and that we should not have gold reserves: of course we should. I do not pretend to have all the financial knowledge before me properly to take a view about whether the Bank of England is right in its portfolio adjustment, but I concede that the people who are overseeing the portfolio of assets that the Bank of England holds in its vaults must from time to time decide whether to make changes and adjustments. It would be nonsense if the Bank of England were to hold static for ever a particular set of assets in particular proportions.

Mr. St. Aubyn: Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is right that the Government took this decision without giving any thought to the effect on the developing world and on the gold price? Jobs are now being lost in very poor countries as a result of this decision.

Mr. Davey: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue, because that is also one of my concerns. Will the Minister explain a little more the thinking behind this decision? Now that we have this debate, it would be sensible for the Government to outline the thinking behind this sale, particularly with respect to employment in developing countries that have gold as one of their key commodity exports and the Government's policy to promote the sale of gold from the International Monetary Fund to help to deal with debt relief in poor countries. I hope that all parties in the House support that policy, because it is crucial that we try to forgive the debts of the poorest countries—the debts that are deemed to be, in Jubilee 2000 language, unpayable. The Government have made a good start, and I hope that they go further. It would be wonderful if the Minister were to announce today further gold sales for that purpose, but I doubt that she will do so.
I hope that the Minister will explain the thinking to reassure us that the left hand knows what the right hand is doing, that there is some co-ordination between the Treasury and the Bank of England on all aspects of policy, and that the policy on assisting debt relief has been linked to the policy of portfolio adjustment at the Bank of England. If those decisions are not co-ordinated, the Government are not doing their job properly.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle on securing this debate. It will help the House to focus on the role of gold in a modern economy. I take a different view from his. In international monetary economics in the late 20th century, money creation and the complexity of global financial markets is such that the role of gold is much diminished. Money creation in modern financial capitalism is almost endogenous and does not rely on a stock of yellow commodity lying in the central bank's reserves. The workings of financial capitalism have almost no relation to gold.
The hon. Gentleman is right that, in extremis, if the whole structure of financial capitalism were to fall to the ground with a nuclear meltdown of the financial markets, the role of gold would come to the fore. It is right for central banks to consider all potential future risks to ensure that our society and our economy can function even in such disaster scenarios. They should hold gold, but they do not need to do so as they have in the past.
I do not know whether selling 125 tonnes of gold over the next 12 months and buying yen, euro and dollar assets is the right portfolio adjustment. Not many hon. Members

have the information and expertise to make that full analysis. However, I think that it is right that the Bank of England is considering how best to deploy its assets.
The total amount being sold is very small compared with the amounts that have been sold by other countries in recent times and that are expected to be sold in the future. Switzerland has announced future sales of 1,300 tonnes of gold, which is much greater than the amount that the Bank of England proposes to sell. We should put this matter in context, and should not get too hot under the collar about it.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: I agree that more attention should be given to this subject. The Government should have called a debate, and I regret that they did not. I also agree about the mystique—"Goldfinger" is on television tonight, so it is an apposite day on which to hold this debate, and I have set my video recorder.
The key issue is whether gold can still play a monetary role. It used to play a big monetary role because people did not trust paper money. It played a crucial role in the development of the international traded goods sector in the 19th century. It was very effective, because it was difficult to cheat. It coincided with a period of stable prices in the 19th century. I say coincided because it was largely luck: it was because gross domestic product grew at roughly the speed of the monetary base—the increase in the amount of gold available—and thereby serious deflation was avoided.
That history of success in the 19th century was carried over into the 20th, and gold was used as part of the stabilising function in the Bretton Woods system in 1944—the dollar link. When inflation created by the Vietnam war destroyed Bretton Woods, that should theoretically have led people to rush back to gold. They did a little, but no serious analyst suggested that gold should be brought back as the monetary base. There were more sophisticated arguments for commodity-based standards, which I think had some merit, but virtually no one, even during the crisis created by global inflation, thought that gold was the right way to go.
Since that time, gold has steadily fallen in price. Can gold once again play a role as a reserve currency? I do not think so. It is no longer a good store of value: we have seen that in recent years. I do not think that gold is a suitable vehicle for open-market operations, which are themselves far less relevant in an age of such huge global capital flows. Nor do I think that we will go back to gold as a vehicle for dealing with inflation, if that returns.
Gold is, as the famous phrase goes, a barbarous economic relic. I cannot believe that it makes good economic sense to spend a huge amount of money digging something up, turning it into ingots and then burying it again in vaults. These gold sales are not primarily a monetary issue. I note that the Monetary Policy Committee did not even discuss the matter. The case for the demonetisation of gold is strong.
I cautiously support the sales, but I am sorry that the Government have not moved more carefully. I do not think that there was any need to rush into these sales. We do not know whether the gold price will go down or up. My hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) said that he thought it was at a low point.


He may be right, and he may be wrong—we do not know—but he could be right, and if he is right we should proceed more cautiously.

Mr. William Cash: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Tyrie: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I will not, because I have only two or three minutes in which to finish my speech.
I am a little worried that we will sell too quickly. It is a question not just of the amount, but of the speed. There are good arguments for believing that the gold price may continue to fall. The United States might start selling gold. Has the Treasury a view on whether major countries are now considering gold sales? Is there any suggestion that they might?
I think that gold will be used less in the 21st century as a store of value in Third world countries—Vietnam was mentioned earlier—and that will result in more gold coming on to the market. Improvements in mining techniques will almost certainly increase the amount of gold available. I worked in the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development for a while, and it was found to be profitable to "leach" the piles of slag that had already been used for gold mining, to obtain gold by means of more efficient industrial processes. The supply side points to a weak gold price for some time to come.
With great respect, I thought that my hon. Friend the Member for Rochford and Southend, East (Sir T. Taylor) was talking nonsense when he suggested that the Government might be selling in order to influence the price of the euro. They could do that perfectly well by using the forward book, with or without gold, as a reserve in the vaults. As I have said, I would like the Government to explain why so fast, and why so much.

Mr. Quentin Davies: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) on securing this short debate, during which he raised a number of points that it would be remiss of the House not to discuss seriously. He is a distinguished parliamentarian, and brings to the subject a wealth of professional experience as well as the depth of historical knowledge for which he is famed in the House. I never listen to him without learning something that I did not know before, and I certainly was not disappointed on this occasion.
The hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) also made some sensible points, and we heard a valuable—but sadly, owing to the shortage of time, all too short—contribution from my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), who probably knows more about the subject than any other Member except my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle.
The Government have left two questions in the minds of parliamentarians and the public. First, why did they decide to sell the gold? We are still no clearer about that, and I hope that we shall be clearer by the end of the debate. Secondly, why have the Government adopted such an astonishing method of conducting the sales?
Because the Government had not given us sufficient explanation, my right hon. Friend the Member for Horsham (Mr. Maude), the shadow Chancellor, wrote to the Chancellor of the Exchequer, but all that he received was a lot of waffle. The reply stated:
As we have been careful to explain this is a prudent restructuring of the reserves.
This is to do with
Prudent management of public finances
to achieve a
better balance in the portfolio.
Those are evasive answers. We need an answer to the question, why is it more prudent for gold to constitute 20 per cent. of the net and 7 per cent. of the gross reserves, rather than 40 per cent. and 17 per cent., or whatever the current figures are? We have heard no explanation of the factors that determined the Government's course of action, and we badly need one.
Gold has traditionally been held as a reserve because its value is a negative function of the strength of the dollar, a positive function of inflation rates and a negative function of real interest rates. It is possible to construct a hedge against the dollar simply by holding other currencies, but there is no such obvious way of obtaining protection against a resurgence of inflation, a collapse of real interest rates or interest rates becoming negative again, as they have during all our lifetimes, that is better than holding gold. As my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle pointed out, gold is a long-term insurance policy against contingencies that we do not foresee in the immediate future, but which could always return. We need to know why the Government have decided that they want to roughly halve that insurance policy. After all, 700 tonnes of gold is not very much for an economy the size of ours.
The Government must think that there is some reason for holding gold in the reserves, or they would have decided to get rid of the entire gold reserve. We need a clear explanation of why they think it prudent to hold a mere 300 tonnes. If they agreed with the arguments advanced by my hon. Friend the Member for Chichester, it would be logical for them to get rid of gold altogether; but they have not, and their actions lack credibility.
Do the Government have formal models for determining their management of the portfolio of the reserves? Is there a formal risk management model? If so, will they place it in the House of Commons Library, so that all of us, including the public, can learn on what the portfolio decisions are based, and why such adjustments are apparently required? After all, the Government are acting in an agency capacity, managing the taxpayer's money.
The Minister must reply to the serious point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle. We cannot allow the rumours to grow, because they are extremely dangerous to public confidence. It has been suggested that the market is very short of gold, that the short positions may be a substantial multiple of the total amount of gold currently held by the Bank of England, and that the Bank's real motive is to save the bacon of firms that are running those short positions. If such a suggestion is being made seriously, it must be dealt with authoritatively and definitively, and we want an answer from the Government now.
Apart from the question "Why do it?", the obvious question in the minds of the public is, "Why do it in what is apparently such an incredibly incompetent and foolish fashion?". Someone who is going to sell something does not announce it in advance to the world, and certainly does not try to talk down the price of a commodity in which he is rather long. In normal circumstances, that makes no sense. If these circumstances, or these rules, are abnormal, we had better hear why it is sensible to make a public announcement. On the facts, it is extremely foolish and damaging. As my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle said, the markets have reduced the value of the whole gold reserve by 10 per cent. or more since the announcement, and it is clear that the announcement has been one of the major factors in the fall. This is, prima facie, a clear case of incompetence on the part of the new Labour Government.
As if that were not enough, how extraordinary it was to try to talk the International Monetary Fund into agreeing on a programme of gold sales a few weeks before trying to sell our own gold. That was madness. One has to be as incompetent as the Government appear to be to damage the market in advance of such a major sales operation. The Minister and, indeed, her boss the Chancellor, owe the taxpayer an explanation. Why have the taxpayer's assets been squandered and their value gratuitously reduced? No sensible business man or woman would dream of conducting his or her affairs in such a way. Or is it perhaps that the conspiracy theory is right? Has the Government's whole plan been simply to drive down the gold price by whatever means, fair or foul, to save the position of certain figures in the City—the firms that were hinted at by my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle—which, apparently, are so short and potentially in such trouble? The Minister has an opportunity to throw light on that. I hope that she will do so.
Given the appalling mistake of having alerted the rest of the world that we were going to sell the gold, why did not the Minister think of alternative ways of proceeding? If she did, why did she not choose them? A private placing is one obvious route that I would have wanted to explore. Some central banks are buying gold. As their balance of payments improve, perhaps China and some of the far east countries will add to their reserves. We have already heard that the Bank of France and the other major gold holders are not selling. Perhaps they might have been prepared to buy a little more, particularly if the alternative was a public auction. They might have said, "We'll help the British out a bit and take some." The discount would almost certainly have been a good deal less than the 10 per cent. and more that has been the effective discount following the manner in which the Government decided to proceed.
Alternatively, what about "feeding the fix"—feeding the market over time? Was that alternative properly explored? If so, why was it not chosen? Of course, the amounts are significant, but, for years and years, the South Africans fed the fixing in the opposite direction. They sold their annual gold production over time, spreading it over the year. They found that to be a good way of doing things, so why, conversely, is it not a good way to reduce one's gold reserves? We want to hear whether that potential solution was explored and, if so, why it was rejected.
Finally, what about the idea of a millennium issue—a retail issue of gold, not sovereigns? Each coin would presumably be much more valuable these days. That might have had distinct marketing opportunities at the millennium. Had we proceeded down that route, the Government might even have sold the gold at a premium and a discount would not have been necessary. Again, we want a clear explanation of why that route was not chosen.

The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Ms Patricia Hewitt): I congratulate the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle (Sir P. Tapsell) on securing the debate and on his fascinating and wide-ranging speech, which, as the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford (Mr. Davies) said, again displayed his skills and knowledge as a historian. I also congratulate the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford on his promotion to the Front Bench. We heard in yesterday's Finance Bill Committee that we were to lose two of the Front-Bench team from the Opposition. We welcome him and his colleagues to their new places.
In this extremely interesting debate, we have heard the two traditions, if you like, of attitudes towards gold. We have heard from the hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle of the mystical significance of gold—I was waiting for that word to appear and he did not disappoint me. During the sensible contributions of the hon. Members for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) and for Chichester (Mr. Tyrie), we heard of the alternative view that was taken by Keynes in the 1930s—of gold as a "barbarous relic".
I regret only that I have been left so little time to respond to the multiple points that have been raised, but I dismiss first the wilder rumours to which the hon. Members for Louth and Horncastle and for Grantham and Stamford both referred. They are nonsense. It is important that we do not in the House take at face value such absurd rumours, which occasionally float around the markets. We should be careful not to give currency to such rumours by remarks in the House that may verge on the irresponsible.
Several Members have asked why the Government have decided to restructure the reserves and to reduce our holdings in gold. The answer is simple. We have reviewed the nature of our portfolio—the assets that we hold in the reserves. We believe that the size of the holdings and their spread across currencies and gold should be determined by the balance of the risk and reward that is offered by gold, and how that compares with the other assets that are held in the reserves.
As some hon. Members have pointed out, gold has been a very poor investment over the past 20 years. The gold price in June 1979 was $280 dollars an ounce. It is little changed on that today, although it shot up to an unsustainable peak of some $800 an ounce in 1980. By contrast, other investments have offered capital gains, or reinvestment of substantial interest earnings over that period. What we are looking for in the restructuring of the reserves is a sensible diversification of the assets.
We are not saying that gold will continue to be a poor investment. As the hon. Member for Chichester said, none of us knows, but we would not be planning to retain a significant proportion of the reserves in gold if we believed that it had no place as a store of value. However, what has happened to the real value of gold should caution the House against some of the more exaggerated claims in its favour.
We continue to believe that gold is a valuable asset and that it performs an important role in countries' reserve assets, but it has to justify its share in terms of its contribution to the overall balance of risks in our reserves portfolio. A key objective in that portfolio's management is to minimise the risk to the taxpayer of fluctuations in the value of the reserves. Financing a large part of the reserves through borrowing in foreign currency largely eliminates that currency risk, as the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford has acknowledged, but considerable risk is borne on the remaining net foreign currency and gold reserves, totalling the equivalent of $14 billion.
The hon. Member for Louth and Horncastle asked why we use that measure of net reserves. Perhaps I may draw his attention to the advice of the International Monetary Fund that countries should disclose not only their gross reserves, but their currency liabilities, so that a proper judgment can be arrived at of net reserves.
Almost half of this country's net reserves have been held in the form of gold. Without taking a view on the prospects for gold, that is a very big exposure to a single asset. Reducing our gold holdings from 715 tonnes to some 300 tonnes over a number of years will gradually bring gold's share of the net reserves down to about a fifth. We believe that that will achieve a better balance in the portfolio.
We will have a better diversified portfolio. We will not be as concentrated in gold as in the past. At the moment, we are twice as exposed to movements in the gold price as to movements in the value of the dollar. Therefore, it is a simple portfolio decision, designed to reduce the risk borne by the British taxpayer.
The hon. Members for Louth and Horncastle and for Grantham and Stamford raised the question, as did other hon. Members, of the timing. The decision to sell now was not motivated by any view that the gold price was about to fall further, or by any of the wilder fantasies that have been suggested. The decision follows a careful review of the role for gold in the UK's reserves. As I have said, it is about portfolio restructuring, not about playing the market, which the hon. Member for Grantham and Stamford seems to want us to do.
Of course we considered various routes for selling the gold before we decided that an auction programme offered advantages of transparency, spreading sales out over a lengthy period. If we had sold outside an auction process, we risked uncertainty over the timing of sales and much greater undermining of the gold price. If we had gone for covert sales on that scale, it is extremely likely that the sales would have been possible only at a discount to the market price. The House would rightly have been critical of such a course.
The gold market has become increasingly sensitised to central bank sales in recent years, of which, as some hon. Members have reminded us, there have been many throughout the world. There would have been a real danger that the market would have realised that a major central bank was selling and would have over-reacted to the volumes actually sold. As the Governor of the Bank of England has indicated, even with the orderly and transparent procedure that we have adopted, the market reaction has been somewhat overdone.

The Financial Times said there were three questions to ask about the—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. We now come to the next debate.

Rail Network Integration (London)

11 am

Mr. Jim Fitzpatrick: In opening this debate, I do not think that it is at all inappropriate to seek your indulgence, Mr. Deputy Speaker, simply to mention that this is national bike week, and that today is national cycle to work day, which is strongly supported by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions. This morning, I personally participated in the events, by cycling from Barking to Westminster, via Tower Hamlets and Covent Garden.
I am sure that the House will wish to congratulate everyone involved in supporting those events, including the all-party cycling group and the British Heart Foundation, which—wholly appropriately, Labour Members may think—was giving out red roses. I should also like to thank the Minister for Transport in London for her personal support for cycling and cyclists. Her support is very much appreciate by those who are involved in cycling.
Yesterday, in his statement, the Deputy Prime Minister best summed up the essence of this debate when he described a "joined-up London". That is exactly what is required.
I shall briefly deal with only three matters—as I know that several colleagues also wish to speak—the first of which is the definition of integration. Secondly, I shall give some examples of good practice in my own constituency and in east London generally. Thirdly, and most importantly, I shall describe the creation of a London orbital line, which would link the East London line, the South London line, the West London line and the North London line.
Integration is not only about theoretical connections or construction projects. Although those are important, integration also encompasses many other matters, such as accessibility generally, and the ability of people with disabilities to access the transport system. Integration is also about ensuring that connecting modes, such as the bus network—which is much maligned, but does an excellent job—feed adequately into the underground system, the rail network and the docklands light railway. It is also about signage—including the language used—in transport hubs and connecting stations, so that individuals feel comfortable with where they are and where they are going.
One of the most advantageous aspects of the London underground is that even tourists seem to be sufficiently comfortable with how the system operates to be able to arrive at a station, look at a map, enter the underground and arrive at a completely different part of London. Maps are therefore very important. I commend DLR for producing integrated maps showing transport modes other than DLR—a model which is being copied by other operators, and can only improve transport in London.
Security in the transport system, too, is very important, and is achieved not only by closed-circuit television but by ensuring that stations and other venues are staffed.
The debate is about user-friendly transport—which includes indicator boards notifying passengers when the next bus or tube will arrive—so that we have not only theoretical integration, but physical and even emotional integration, allowing people to feel comfortable and

confident in using public transport. Everyone involved in the issue is promoting that type of integration, and much progress is being made in achieving it.
I should like to echo the comments made yesterday by the Deputy Prime Minister in paying tribute to all of London Transport's staff. In the majority of their activities, despite many problems, they are very efficient, helpful and courteous. I am sure that many hon. Members have seen many more rude passengers than rude staff members, who provide an excellent service.
In Poplar and Canning Town, unlike in some parts of London, we are well served by transport links. In my constituency, we have the docklands light railway, the Jubilee line extension, London City airport, a variety of bus routes, the District and Central tube lines and the London-Tilbury-Southend line. We are also right next door to the channel tunnel rail link, which will be in Stratford.
My constituency also has many good examples of integration, such as at Limehouse station and the newly reconstructed West Ham station, and especially at Canning Town—which has a state-of-the-art station to interface the bus network, the Jubilee line extension, Silverlink and DLR. The Canning Town station is clean, safe and efficient. Consequently, it is becoming ever more popular.
Public transport in east London generally is becoming busier, as it carries ever more passengers. DLR, for example, previously carried about 20 million passengers annually, but is now carrying 28 million passengers a year. Although passenger numbers will be reduced significantly when the Jubilee line extension opens—from 29 million passengers annually to 21 million—they will rise to 40 million when the Lewisham extension opens. The Government office for London and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are considering provision of extra DLR trains to deal with those increased numbers.
It has been well argued that east London will be the engine for this great capital city, to drive us into the next millennium. East London's transport infrastructure will be critical in ensuring that east London is successful in playing that role, and the London orbital should be one of the main aspects of that infrastructure.
The purpose of the London orbital is to link the East London, South London, West London and North London lines into a circular line. The South London line is run by Connex, the West London and North London lines by Silverlink, and the East London line—which has recently re-opened after a three year refit, and has some new connections, particularly at Canada Water—by London Underground.
The problem to date, however, has been that the lines do not quite link up. There is a missing link between Dalston and Whitechapel, where there is a disused railway viaduct, and another missing link between Surrey Quays and Queens Road station, in Peckham.
London Underground has proposed two schemes to join up those missing links. The first is a northern extension, which London Underground Ltd. authorised to proceed in 1997, but needs additional funding. The second is a southern link, on which, last year, the Deputy Prime Minister authorised preparatory work, and on which a decision will be taken this summer.
The two schemes would cost only £150 million. Moreover, when the links are built, London Underground could run a line from Highbury, down the East London line to Peckham, and then—on Connex lines—on to Clapham Junction, Wimbledon or Croydon. Although Wimbledon or Croydon are currently the preferred options, after working for 13 years as a firefighter at Battersea fire station, I prefer the Clapham Junction option. However, I do not think that that argument will sway LUL.
Completion of the links would make it possible to run trains right round an orbital route at no extra cost. I believe that that should happen, and much of the Deputy Prime Minister's statement yesterday seemed to be advocating such a course.
The main benefits of such an approach are that the initial stage could be under construction within the lifetime of this Parliament, and the links would reach parts of London that currently are not on the tube, such as Peckham, Battersea and Hackney. Such an approach would be an important step towards integrating tube and rail networks; improve the accessibility of regeneration areas, such as the docklands; and create new cross-London railways at one twentieth the cost of a new tube line.
The orbital would also give through-London passengers an alternative to going via the centre, improve radial journeys, and put more of south London—which currently has 40 per cent. of London's population, but only 11 per cent. of stations—on the tube map. I am not sure what south London ever did to offend the powers that be who originally designed the tube network.
Thus, at no great expense, an orbital network could be devised for London, because most of the lines needed for such a network are already in place. One can travel from Clapham Junction to Willesden Junction and on into the east end via Highbury and Islington and the North London lines with only one change. The East London line, which reopened in March last year, currently runs between New Cross and New Cross Gate. London Underground is currently looking into the pros and cons of extending that line north from Shoreditch, via Bishopsgate, to connect with Dalston. In a reply to a written question tabled in July last year, the Government stated that they were considering how best to take that project forward. The scheme, whose estimated cost is only £150 million, is relatively inexpensive because it uses much existing infrastructure. Yesterday's statement by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister clearly moves that agenda forward, which is welcome.
In respect of the southern extension, London Underground appears to have two favoured alignments: New Cross Gate to East Croydon or West Croydon, or from Surrey Quays on to South London rail lines, but with services to Wimbledon via Streatham and Tulse Hill. The Surrey Quays link would make use of largely disused land to connect with existing rail lines north of Queen's road, Peckham.
London Transport, Railtrack and the Association of Train Operating Companies attended a conference last year to discuss ways in which the organisations could work more closely together. The objective was to improve integration, and I understand that my hon. Friend the

Minister for Transport in London attended. As a result, four different working groups were set up to consider different aspects of integration. The first is physical integration, and LT has appointed a project manager to ensure that action is taken quickly on matters such as joint maps and a combined timetable. There are working parties on fares and ticketing to improve links; on public affairs issues; and on long-term schemes and strategies, in a joint arrangement with ATOC. The long-term working group is considering the bigger issues, preparing briefing documents for the new mayor and assembly next year, and working toward a common stance.
On the orbital network, LT would argue that, in world-city terms, there might be a role for enhancing the network, but it will obviously depend on the mayor's strategy. In addition, there is the question of funding. The Government have stated that, if road pricing is to be acceptable, the money derived from it must be used to fund public transport, such as bus priorities, road calming measures or pedestrianisation. However, revenue derived from car travel could usefully be used for schemes such as the extension of the East London line, which would be relatively inexpensive. The extended line would naturally form part of an inner orbital network. It is possible that the mayor might be encouraged to form an orbital network if it conforms with his or her other policies and priorities.
The orbital might come about naturally: as other schemes came to fruition, they would simply need to be linked up—for example, the Croydon tramlink already covers one quarter of the outer orbital network. Yesterday, the Deputy Prime Minister spoke of "joined-up London", and referred to the London link plan connecting the five airports with the channel tunnel rail link. He mentioned expanding the network from its current form by adding the Jubilee line extension, the docklands light railway extensions, the Croydon tram and the Thames water taxis. I believe that London's transport network is doing an excellent job in the circumstances, but it could do much better.
I am grateful to Archie Galloway, chairman of the East London Group, for writing to me in support of the London orbital. His group represents 10 London boroughs, the City of London corporation, local business and regeneration agencies, and it launched a brochure on the case for the orbital yesterday. I should also like to express my appreciation to my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Mr. Linton) and for Putney (Mr. Colman), who have worked hard to promote transport issues in London with parliamentary colleagues and those outside who are interested or involved in transport.
The case for the London orbital is well made, and my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and his Department are clearly looking in that direction. I anticipate further progress being made between now and the arrival of the new mayor and assembly next year.

Mr. Martin Linton: I, too, welcome the announcement made yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister of a private-public partnership in which London Underground and Railtrack will together examine ways in which the surface railway system and the London underground can be linked. My right hon. Friend has been a long-term advocate of such a linkage between tube and rail in London, which, in a useful


phrase, he described yesterday as "joined-up London". He also mentioned some of the major schemes that could flow from that linking: for example, the five airports around London and the channel tunnel rail link could all be linked into the same railway system, thus enabling swift communication between them.
In a debate such as this, we can focus closely on London and consider in detail the possibilities opened up by that statement. One scheme that is explicitly included in the discussions between London Underground and Railtrack is the East London line extensions, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) referred. I am sure that the northern extension, which would link the East London line to the North London line will be mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), just as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) will refer to the southern link that will link the East London line to the line into Croydon. That will enable tubes to be run from Highgate down to Croydon and Wimbledon and give the first tube interchange for the Croydon tramlink, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) is so enthusiastic.
I shall concentrate on another possibility, which is that of running trains from Highgate around to Clapham Junction, via either Brixton or Streatham Common. The important thing is the link to Clapham Junction. The reason for my interest in the scheme and for my having asked many questions about the East London line, which lies many miles from my constituency, is that my constituency contains Clapham Junction, which is one of the oldest and most famous large stations in London. It was built in 1863 and, many years ago, it became the busiest station in the United Kingdom—indeed, the busiest in Europe, and it still has signs that advertise that claim. Its name has become famous world wide: Harold Macmillan used the phrase, the "Clapham Junction of politics" to mean a place that everyone has to go through; and, in a music book, I even discovered a description of the chord of the diminished seventh as the "Clapham Junction of music", because it is the chord from which one can go anywhere.
Clapham Junction has entered popular currency in many different ways, yet it is not on the tube system. That omission is a long-standing and keenly felt grievance of the people of Battersea, and it needs to be put right. My reasons are not purely parochial; there are many reasons why that link should be made. Many commuters do not want to go to a central London terminus, but to some other part of London. Entering London from any direction other than the south or south-west, they are able to get off the train and on to the tube system before they reach a terminus; but that is not possible coming from the south or south-west, because Clapham Junction is not on the tube. More important, a scheme such as the London orbital would allow access to the tube system by many communities in London that do not currently have such access.
Quite apart from linking up with the East London and South London lines, the network would lead to a link to the West London line, which goes from Clapham Junction up to Willesden Junction. It is sorely underused by rail passengers—few even know of its existence. Until recently, there was only one stop on the line between the two junctions, at Kensington Olympia, but last month

another stop was opened at West Brompton. Apart from those two stops, the line passes without stopping through the rest of Battersea, through Sands End in Fulham and through a station in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) which is intriguingly named North Pole—it was closed many years ago, but I believe that it should be reopened. At Willesden Junction the line joins the North London line, completing the London orbital route that we are seeking.
That orbital route has long been dreamed of. It was suggested many years ago by the Greater London council. The Railway Development Society and Transport 2000 have campaigned for it under the name Outer Circle. The story is rather like Frobisher's search for the north-west passage. Only since yesterday have we been able to say that it can be done, because only when the two missing links in the East London line are joined up does the orbital route become possible.
That creates three important possibilities for travellers in London. One is for commuters going to Docklands or north London rather than the terminus who want to avoid the hassle of going through the centre of London. They will be able to make a direct connection with an orbital route. Another important use is for through London passengers. Many people have no business in central London and come to the capital only because the railway system is so centred on it. Given the option of an orbital route they might well get off at Clapham Junction, go to Willesden Junction and get on a train in another direction. A few people do that already, but not many because there is not a regular orbital train. I am convinced that many people would happily get off at stations such as Highbury and Islington or Willesden Junction, which are two or three miles from the terminus, and change to another line if they could.
However, the most important issue for inner London Members is that many communities in inner London are disfranchised from the tube system. A London orbital line would correct an ancient injustice. Large parts of south London were bypassed by the tube system, as were Hackney and some parts of north London. That happened partly for geological reasons. When the system was built it was thought to be impossible to tunnel through clay. A tunnelling expert today would say that clay was the best material through which to tunnel. There were also historical reasons that the train services in north London were longer distance lines that were less inclined to build up commuter services, so the tube was relied on for that, whereas the south London train lines developed as commuter lines.
As a result, south London, which has nearly 40 per cent. of the population of London, has only 11 per cent. of the tube stations. More insidious than that is the fact that many lines have far fewer trains per hour, which means that access from the south London suburbs—or, indeed, from Hackney—to central London is often much more difficult. It is possible to get to the centre of London quickly from Bromley, Croydon or Clapham Junction. The system is handy for those who work near the terminus, but it is not conducive for those who want to travel to any other part of London or join in London as a metropolis. That contributes to south London's reputation


for having quiet suburbs with people who do their job in the City and go home at half past five, whereas north London has a more raffish, cosmopolitan atmosphere.

Joan Ruddock: Not true.

Mr. Linton: South London has changed. The train system built with that in mind is now inappropriate. Thousands of students and young people who come to work in the capital and live in south London want to be able to travel around London until late at night. They do not just want to go to work and go back home. The tourism industry in south London suffers inordinately from the fact that the area does not exist on the tube map. Millions of tourists come to London under the impression that it is almost entirely north of the Thames. Tourist attractions, as Battersea power station will become, find it difficult to persuade tourists that south London exists.
The entertainment industry suffers from the same problem. I am president of Battersea arts centre. Even though it is often the Time Out pick of the month, it is surprisingly difficult to persuade people from north London that they can catch what used to be called a British Rail train to Clapham Junction, get off, walk five minutes and find an arts centre. It is much closer than many of the arts centres that they frequently go to in north London, but it seems far less accessible. That is a problem for the parts of London not touched by the tube system.
Those in inner south London suburbs such as mine, close to the centre but far away in travel time, suffer most. My constituency is criss-crossed with hundreds of railway lines. It probably has a greater concentration of railway lines than any other constituency, even though acres upon acres of goods yards have been closed. However, it is like the ancient myth of Tantalus. We have all the railway lines, but after one stop people have to change to a different mode of transport. A two or three-mile journey to central London can often take an hour.
We should try to use the enormous possibilities that the public-private partnership opens up to revert to the original concept of the London underground. It was not built to take people to central London and dump them there. The concept was that trains would continue underground from the terminus to take people to different parts of London. That is why the Metropolitan line tunnels are wide enough to take large steam trains, although they have never been used for that. The concept of linking tube and railway lines will make it possible for the first time for people from outside London to travel in and have the advantage of being taken not just to Waterloo, but to several stations in inner London.
No other capital scheme could be started during this Parliament. Indeed, it could be completed early in the next if approval is given to the extensions later this year. At perhaps £150 million—my hon. Friend the Minister may be able to give us a better idea of the cost—it will be only one twentieth of the £3 billion that a new tube line would cost.
The third great advantage of the scheme is that it would put all London into quick contact with the regeneration areas in Docklands. It would also help many disadvantaged areas in inner London. The Thameslink line, which goes through central London, was opened for

its true purpose only 10 or 15 years ago. It still has very few stations and those at Walworth and Camberwell, in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Camberwell and Peckham (Ms Harman), have been closed for a long time. That is probably the longest stretch of railway track in London with no station and it is in one of the most densely populated areas. Although they are close to the centre, those suburbs are inaccessible.
The orbital scheme has many advantages for regeneration, cost and time scale. I am glad that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister introduced the concept of a joined-up London. Including the London orbital and other routes in the concept and joining them to the tube system will contribute enormously to the revival of inner London.

Mr. Norman Baker: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on securing this debate. I do not know whether he accelerated the timing of the Deputy Prime Minister's statement yesterday, or whether he was just very timely, unlike some of the trains that many of us rely on. I found his comments and those of the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) interesting. We all agree that we must make the maximum creative use of the existing infrastructure. I benefited from the London orbital, such as it is, on Monday, when I travelled from Brighton to Oxford without changing, on the line via Kensington Olympia. I agree that the line is hardly used, but the potential is there.
The Thameslink service has allowed people from outside London to go through the city without having to change. The situation 10 years ago, when people had to get off at Victoria, take the tube and get another train somewhere else was simply ludicrous. People going about their business in London do not want loads of people traipsing on and off trains at different stations.
The idea of merging sub-surface lines with the tube is nothing new. I used to live at the end of the District line, at Upminster. Long before my time—pre-war, I think—that line was used for a combined London, Tilbury and Southend and underground service; one could get a train from Richmond to Southend via the tube network and overground lines. Such ideas were used in the past and it may be simply a matter of reactivating them. There used to be shared use of the Bakerloo line north of Harrow, with combined services running up to Watford Junction but that has now been cut back on the underground map.
I sympathise with the point about south London. I used to live in north London, and south London was a different world; it was pretty inaccessible, partly perhaps because of the nature of the underground map, which is representative rather than accurate in its portrayal of the distance between stations. For example, the escalator link between Monument and Bank is shown as about as long as the distance between Upminster and Barking on the District line. That would make it the longest escalator link in the world, I imagine.
Perhaps the Government could consider encouraging London Transport to devise a more creative map that shows more of the existing connections with—to use the shorthand—the British Rail network, of which many members of the public are not aware. Why are not the links to Clapham Junction and Olympia on the underground map?
I am surprised at the involvement of Railtrack and the Government's warm reception of it. The Government have been highly critical of Railtrack, with good reason, for giving a first-class service to its shareholders and a third-class service to some of its customers. We have heard about underinvestment and broken rails in the Severn tunnel and the Deputy Prime Minister has rightly been trying to force Railtrack to invest more in the network, but it seems that its reward for not doing so is to be given a share of the London underground network. We can only conclude that, had it failed even more abysmally, it would have been allowed to enter the two deep-tube public-private partnership competitions as well.
We must be careful before we hand over more of our rail infrastructure to Railtrack, given its poor performance so far. I hope that belt-and-braces contracts will be signed to ensure that it does not get another milch cow for its shareholders, leaving people in London, and the Government, wringing their hands and wondering what has gone wrong.
One of the technical questions that need to be answered is about the effect on overground suburban services. I am not sure whether it is intended that underground or overground rolling stock should be predominantly used. There is an acute shortage of rolling stock, and that which is used on the overground lines, which would presumably integrate with the underground network, is in many cases very old indeed. The Connex services from my part of the world use 1963 trains, and I think that 1954 trains run from Uckfield; certainly they were built before I was born, and they are still in daily use. What would the criteria for new rolling stock be?
All the underground system is third rail, as are many of the suburban services, but the north London services use overhead lines, so that complication needs to be sorted out. I am also slightly concerned about the capacity of the underground system to handle more trains. We can do a certain amount by increased signalling, but my understanding from talking to London Underground employees and my colleagues in London is that one of the problems is not signalling but station capacity. If we had more trains, the congestion on platforms, which is a real hazard, would only get worse. For example, London Bridge station is regularly blocked to prevent people from accessing the platform until one or two trains have gone.

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that there may be a danger that the Government will take this opportunity to reduce the urgency of the Crossrail proposal? The suggested link has always been the Treasury's answer to Crossrail; it is the cheap version, allowing the Heathrow express to run along the top of the Circle line and into Liverpool Street. Better integration is on offer, but no new capacity. We should be wary of an excuse to drop the urgency of the Crossrail project.

Mr. Baker: That is a helpful intervention. We need to do both: to use our existing infrastructure in the best way but also to have new schemes giving access to areas such as Hackney—which Crossrail would serve—that would not benefit from the orbital link.

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I can understand the hon. Gentleman's regarding the intervention by the hon. Member for North

Essex (Mr. Jenkin) as helpful, but it was less than helpful in its failure to point out that it was the previous Administration who shelved Crossrail.

Mr. Baker: That is equally true. I can agree with both Front-Bench representatives who have intervened on me.
There is a Treasury input in the public-private partnership proposal. The hidden hand of the Treasury is always there, trying to ensure that as little public money as possible is spent on the project and that as much of it as possible is shunted off to the private sector. We have heard that there are problems with the timetable and we do not know when deals will be concluded and contracts signed.
My hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Mr. Brake) did not get an answer when he asked:
If there is a further delay to the PPP plans, what allowance has he"—
the Deputy Prime Minister—
made for the extra finance that will be required to ensure that maintenance and investment continue? At what point will he show that the public-private partnership is best value, and will he use the public sector comparator to do that? Are the Government holding discussions with other consortiums … about the possible integration between the national rail network and the sub-surface lines … or is only Railtrack in the running?"—[Official Report, 15 June 1999; Vol. 333, c. 161.]
Those questions, with respect, were not answered yesterday, so I am hoping that if I repeat them today my hon. Friend the Member for Carshalton and Wallington and I will be able to read the answer in the Official Report tomorrow.
Why are the Government so opposed to the idea of a public interest company, which could provide the investment that the underground system needs? Do not large older systems such as London's tube network require access to predictable long-term sources of capital, including the ability to borrow against their own revenues? Allowing London's new transport authority to borrow, free from the artificial public sector borrowing requirement constraints, would enable it to access a capital market at far less expense than any private sector borrower. Why have the Government ruled that out and taken a more uncertain route?
There are problems with station capacity. Railtrack has said that the new Canada Water station on the East London line is unable to take more than four-vehicle trains and that peak demand "may cause serious overcrowding." That does not sound like a world-class transport system.
Significant investment will be required in signalling, station capacity for passengers, platform capacity, rolling stock, new connections, dealing with the third rail overhead problem and ensuring that suburban overhead services do not suffer as a consequence. I welcome the idea of using infrastructure, but I put those points in a constructive manner to the Minister and ask her whether proper estimates have been made and, if so, who will pay.
If an agreement is finally concluded and signed with Railtrack, will it be under any obligation to extend the network, perhaps to take in Crossrail, or, perhaps, to consider new connections, or will it simply be there to make the most of the existing infrastructure? If we are


to give Railtrack yet another helping hand—which I did not expect the Government to do—we should exact a high price for it, and I hope that the Government will do so.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: I am delighted to join in the debate and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) has raised it. I want to concentrate on the vital missing link in the London orbital, which in Hackney we describe as the east London tube line extension. As we have heard, there are two gaps, one in the southern area and one in the northern area. I want to concentrate on the urban regeneration consequences of filling in that vital missing link.
I have been arguing the case for the east London extension for about 10 years. I think that it was about eight years ago that I raised it in an Adjournment debate. I am glad to see that there is much more support for it now than there was then. In those 10 years, Ministers and shadow Ministers have come to Hackney and said that it is a super idea, but they have gone away and not much has happened. The only real thing that has happened is that, after a lengthy and cumbersome Public Works Acts inquiry, the Secretary of State has given permission for at least the northern missing link to be filled in.
But now we are told that we must await the arrival of the Mayor of London. To the putative front runners, whether it be Trevor Phillips for Labour, Jeffrey Archer for the Conservatives or—well, I will not mention my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, East (Mr. Livingstone) because my pager tells me that to do so would be off message—I would say that I could neither vote for any of them nor recommend that anyone else should vote for them unless they can give a copper-bottomed guarantee that this will be a top priority when a Labour Mayor of London is elected.
The scheme will have a huge number of regeneration consequences for the London borough of Hackney. Although £150 million is petty cash for the railways, this is not some small scheme for us. The regeneration consequences of the east London tube line extension are enormous. Hackney is the third most densely populated authority in Britain. More than a quarter of its population live in the corridor of the proposed east London tube line extension on the orbital route, and they are waiting for the benefits to flow from it. Unemployment in Hackney is double that for London and Britain, and is comparable only with the highest rates in the north west and the north east of England. In some wards in the east London tube line extension corridor, the rates are three times the London level.
In that corridor are 2,500 businesses, employing 30,000 people, so two-thirds of all Hackney's jobs are in this new line catchment area. We estimate that 14,000 jobs are waiting to be created if the missing link is put in, 8,000 of which will be directly attributable to the new line, and the others will be offshoots of the new line.
Not all those new jobs will be taken by Hackney people, but the unemployment rate in Hackney is expected to fall by 10 per cent., which is a massive fall, once the line is up and running. In addition, we calculate—this was referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea

(Mr. Linton)—that the link with central London and docklands could provide another 2,500 jobs for Hackney residents and many jobs for residents from other parts of east and south London.
In addition to that, Hackney's age profile is such that during the next five years a huge surge of school leavers will come on to the job market, and unless the line is up and running, many of those school leavers will not have a job at all, even with the excellent work being done under the new deal.
Like Battersea and certain other areas in London, we do not have a tube at all, so two-thirds of Hackney's work force travel outside the borough. Some use private cars, although car ownership is also at almost the lowest level in London. Many use the buses, although they are becoming less and less reliable. Therefore, this is a critical reliable route for the people of Hackney. To make a quick comparison, neighbouring Islington has three tube lines. Its demography is almost the same as Hackney's, yet it has 50 per cent. more local jobs. I suspect that many of those are related to the transport in the area. Therefore, the orbital line is critical for Hackney.
I make one last political point. The supremo for the scheme is the Deputy Prime Minister. He has been to Hackney, as has my hon. Friend the Minister for Transport in London, to look at the scheme, and we were delighted to see them. We are concerned about the long hard struggle and the long wait that we have had. Some people in Hackney are asking whether the Deputy Prime Minister can cut the mustard on this one. We have always regarded him with affection. We see him as the Mike Tyson of politics. But we are beginning to wonder whether he is losing his ability to strike the knock-out punch, or, to put it more prosaically, where will the money come from and when will we get it?
Originally, we were told that London Transport would give us the money straight out. Then we were told that it would be part of a private finance imitative. Now we are told that it will be part of a public-private partnership. We do not blame the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions; we blame the Treasury, as ever. We are all fed up with these Treasury gyrations and gymnastics. I should like my hon. Friend the Minister to tell us that the money is coming shortly.

Joan Ruddock: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on initiating this important debate in the House. I agree with everything that has been said by my hon. Friends, and, perhaps, even with the odd thing that has been said by Opposition Members.
Eight years ago, I was shadow Minister for Transport in London, and I produced a report then which stated:
Through the election of a Greater London Authority, Labour will return to London the strategic planning it so desperately needs. We will link land use and transport planning to provide greater access at lower environmental costs. We will set higher standards for every aspect of public transport and maximise the integration of different modes to provide easier, more pleasant and more reliable travel.
I am delighted that old Labour's promises are being so forcefully fulfilled by new Labour today.
I also acknowledge that the process by which the proposals came to us through the Deputy Prime Minister yesterday was undoubtedly encouraged by the activities


of my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) and all the work that his group has done in trying to advance the case for transport integration in London.
I add my specific support to the extensions of the East London line. As others have said today, south London and, in the case of Hackney, north London, are ill served, or served not at all, by the underground system. Therefore, it is crucial to have the extension from New Cross Gate to Croydon.
My constituency will stand to gain a tremendous amount. We have made no job calculations, but we expect a real boost to the local economy and to providing access to jobs that exist elsewhere which are not easily accessed at the moment. Regeneration is at the heart of the economic progress that is being made in my constituency.
The partnership between a progressive Labour authority and the Government is producing a welcome and essential fall in unemployment and an improvement in the local economy and environment. However, we want more. Yesterday's report about the premature deaths suffered by people in this country from the effects of car-borne pollution should spur us all to access the railways. In my constituency, much of the car exhaust comes from vehicles passing through to other parts of London. We need to be able to reduce reliance on that form of transport, and the integration of London's railway services will be important to that end, however it is done.
The East London line extension group has argued that, although the necessary investment to build the two extensions to the line amounts to £150 million, the extension will boost the £1.5 billion investment provided through regeneration schemes in the affected areas. That will foster jobs in general but also, I hope, the growth of the creative and arts industries.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea mentioned that such industries are important for many people, but my area has many practising artists and creative institutions. We want to extend the links with their counterparts across the river, such as have already been established between Lewisham Art house and the Whitechapel gallery, for example. Such links create jobs and add to the richness of London life.
Yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister set out his vision of a connected London and talked of new connections between all the major transport hubs. As the plans progress, I urge the Government to think carefully about the local integration of different modes of transport and the stations that they serve. Again, a local example could be the blueprint for much of what the Government want to achieve.
My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town, in opening this debate, referred to the criteria defining integration. I agree with everything that he said about what that means, and that it is more complex than merely providing a variety of services or linking hard rail, light rail and the underground.
In Lewisham, there are 28 passenger rail lines, which go into central London and out towards the south. There are 39 major bus routes, serving numerous destinations, and the docklands light railway will soon extend through my constituency and into Lewisham. However, it seems to me that most people learn to use—and keep on using—a single route. They have great difficulty in planning other routes to places that they visit occasionally or when they want to make a change. That is a critically important

matter. We need better sign provision and maps, and must enable people to maximise their use of rail through improved connections. There is no doubt that that is the integration that we need for the 21st century.
The Lewisham challenge partnership is led by my local authority. It proposes that the locality needs a new type of integration. The Lewisham passenger transport interchange proposed by the partnership deserves the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister. It is the subject of a bid under the single regeneration budget and represents an important model. The bid document states that the aim of the bid is to
improve the ease of use of interchange by reducing the time taken for transfer between services and make the service more attractive to commuters currently using private cars
and to
connect the stations more directly with the leisure, retail and business activity within the town centre and the wider community.
That is of crucial importance. As has happened in so many other boroughs, towns and other parts of London, our railway station has been cut off from the town centre by railway lines, two major roads and the extensions necessary to carry car-borne traffic. Reintegrating people, transport services and leisure and business activities gives rise to some very important issues.
The new interchange will also promote and exploit transport's potential to encourage business. Employers as well as employees are concerned about integration, which will help with employment links across the Thames and throughout the region. The improvement to the natural and man-made environment will make the interchange more attractive and pleasant to use.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to look carefully at what is happening in my area as an example of how to move forward, and to bear in mind the discomfort suffered by so many people when the East London line was out of action. We all want to see the new proposals go ahead, but due regard must be given to the travelling lives of passengers and customers when the new works are in hand.
I end by saying that, in 1836, the first urban railway in the world was opened, to great excitement, in my constituency. It ran between Greenwich and London bridge, and Deptford station is still being used to this day. Of course, I was not around at the time—

Mr. Jenkin: The hon. Lady is old Labour.

Joan Ruddock: On the contrary, I am absolutely new Labour. However, I can imagine the enormous excitement that that innovation must have brought to south London. Since then, the railway has suffered from much neglect. Trains are so overcrowded, late and in such poor condition that many Londoners are completely disenchanted with the rail system. But I believe that we are now at the beginning of a new age of great excitement about the use and integration of rail and underground systems, from which all Londoners will benefit.

Ms Karen Buck: I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on securing this debate, and wish to express my gratitude to


my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Linton) for the leadership that he has shown in recent months in helping to build the case for the orbital network. They have set out a powerful and persuasive case for seizing and developing the opportunities presented by yesterday's statement.
Safe, affordable and reliable public transport is the key to tackling traffic congestion in our city. It will bring immeasurable benefits for London's economy and help to tackle social exclusion, as well as making London a cleaner and more pleasant place to live in. Like other Labour Members, I warmly welcomed yesterday's statement by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister about the London link scheme that will link the national railway and the underground. Greater integration has to make sense in terms of making the best use of available capacity and improving the potential for passengers to make journeys through London and on the orbital route.
It makes sense for Railtrack to be a partner in the developments, although it will have to improve on its investment and management record. I speak with passion on that subject, as I depend on the Bakerloo line, to which the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) referred earlier. That line goes as far as Harrow and has suffered continual disruption because of signal failures throughout the 1990s. The surface train and underground network extending from Watford, through Queen's Park station and into Baker street has been less effective than it could have been because of the signal failures that have plagued it. I look forward to the Government and the rail regulator being firm and tough in negotiations with Railtrack to ensure that the company delivers.
My purpose in contributing to the debate is to stress the need to fill the gaps that at present are left by the underground and surface rail services. The orbital network presents a great opportunity in that regard but, to fulfil our wider ambitions for public transport, we must make sure that swathes of the inner city are not excluded.
Surface train services that interconnect with the underground should be able to operate as regularly as most suburban bus services, giving passengers confidence about reliability and frequency. That is the only way to make sure that people use the underground as an alternative to their cars, particularly for getting to work, when punctuality is of the essence. In my corner of west London, a densely populated inner-city community is squeezed between two important rail lines—the West London line and the Paddington mainline and channel tunnel link. Properties on those estates need soundproofing to insulate them from the noise of the trains that pass virtually under their windows, but the people there have no access to either service.
Silverline plans to run trains on the West London line from Clapham to Barking, covering half the London orbital route through north London and offering numerous interchanges to the tube and other lines. Unless there is a station at North Pole road, however, thousands of people on the William Sutton Trust estate, the Peabody estates and the Hillfarm estate in north Kensington will have no means of accessing the service.
A proposal to reopen a station at North Pole road has been under consideration for decades. About three years ago, Railtrack concluded that only three additional

stations should be provided on the West London line between Clapham and Willesden junction. There will be stations at West Brompton, which I was pleased to see open recently, at Shepherd's Bush and at either Chelsea harbour or North Pole road. I understand that capacity is not sufficient to win priority for North Pole road.
The exciting opportunity presented by the public-private partnership and the orbital network makes this the right time to seize the chance to reopen that station. If that means delivering extra capacity or re-routing freight traffic to enhanced alternative routes, so be it. Unless we resolve those problems, we will not create the comprehensive integrated network that we need.
Several hon. Members have mentioned the ways in which regeneration interacts with an integrated public transport system. In 1992, north Kensington city challenge identified the area's poor transport infrastructure, congestion and unreliable bus services as a major barrier to employment. Public transport links remain extremely poor, particularly to the south of the borough and the employment opportunities of west London.
In particular, links are poor to the Park Royal industrial estate, which has been assisted with European money, and which provides many employment opportunities. Although north Kensington is close to that estate as the crow flies across Wormwood Scrubs, the community has no means of reaching it by public transport. If there were a station at North Pole road, people would be able to change at Willesden junction to get to jobs on that estate.
The single regeneration budget scheme that is tackling unemployment in north Kensington has illustrated the fact that the physical isolation of the major estates affects the social exclusion of residents. It also contributes to the 13 per cent. unemployment in the St. Charles ward—40 per cent. more than the inner London average. Local surveys confirm that there is extreme dissatisfaction with public transport in north Kensington, not only for employment reasons but because of the isolation of young parents and young people's inability to get to entertainment venues in the evenings.
I believe that there is an overwhelming case for services that link us to the orbital network. Kensington and Chelsea council would welcome proposals to release capacity for local services and new stations, and so would I. North Kensington is not alone. Similar cases have been made for Hackney and south London. Labour Members share an enthusiasm for what the orbital network can deliver in the context of wider investment in the surface and underground networks. Will Railtrack help to deliver extra capacity to make the links work and to take us towards a 21st century network that will leave no socially excluded islands abandoned at its centre?

Mr. Bernard Jenkin: I congratulate the hon. Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on obtaining today's debate and on its timing. His prescience must be valued by his constituents, as the debate comes just one day after the Government's major statement on the subject. I would not dream of suggesting that his success was due to anything other than heavenly inspiration.
I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for national bike week, and I was at the front of the queue with him at this morning's successful event. Some of those who


attended are more regular bikers than others who turned up for the photo opportunity. I do not include the hon. Gentleman in that remark. I got there on my own bike and so did he, but one or two hon. Members were there just for today, and were looking forward to slipping back into their ministerial cars.
I enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's tour d'horizon around the integration projects that are expected to flow from the ideas currently in play. He was enthusiastic about spending the proceeds of new taxes that will be imposed on Londoners with cars and businesses that have car parks. That did not sound very new Labour. He dreamt of spending revenues before a single penny has been collected. We remain opposed to those taxes because it is unfair to withdraw Government grants from local authorities for public transport in London while making Londoners pay extra.

Ms Glenda Jackson: Is that another U-turn in Conservative policy? The hon. Gentleman knows that road charging and a workplace levy would be an empowerment for local authorities that chose to use them rather than a statutory requirement. During the Committee stage of the Greater London Authority Bill, the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) said that the Conservative party supported congestion charging in principle and supported a private non-parking levy for everywhere in the United Kingdom except London.

Mr. Jenkin: Once again, the Minister has misunderstood Conservative policy, but we are not discussing that point this morning. The Government are fond of claiming that the taxes raised would be hypothecated, but hypothecation means nothing unless it provides additional money. If the Government are withdrawing grant and replacing the shortfall with the taxes—

Ms Jackson: We are not.

Mr. Jenkin: The Minister is doing that.
We have heard valuable speeches from the hon. Members for Lewes (Mr. Baker), for Battersea (Mr. Linton), for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock) and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck). We all want more investment in infrastructure, and we share the dream of integration. The previous Conservative Government did not have a bad record on either. We oversaw completion of the Victoria line, began the Jubilee line extension, and opened Thameslink and the docklands light railway. I sat on the Committee that dealt with the Croydon tramlink, another Conservative project. The much acclaimed Heathrow Express was opened by the Prime Minister with a great fanfare, and the Minister herself gave it a prize at the Railway Forum dinner earlier this year.

Ms Jackson: The Railway Forum gave the prize.

Mr. Jenkin: I saw the hon. Lady there, and I saw her present the prize.

Ms Jackson: The Railway Forum gave the prize.

Mr. Jenkin: If the hon. Lady is suggesting that she did not believe in the prize that she handed over, far be it from me to allow any unparliamentary expression to cross my lips.
Where will the money come from for the further integration that we all want?
The black cloud that looms over London Underground is the dreadful public-private partnership, with which the Government have replaced the investment plans that they inherited from the Conservatives. The Government cancelled those plans as soon as they came into office, in the name of a publicly owned and publicly accountable service. That has been followed by two years of absolute stalemate. The morale of the tube's staff and management has plummeted. It is a bit rich for the hon. Member for Deptford to say that old Labour's promises are being fulfilled, the day after the Government announced that the privatised Railtrack will provide the capital and investment for which the tube has been crying out.
According to the Labour party, Railtrack was public enemy No. 1 because it made profits and doubled annual investment in the railways. It has been transformed into the rescuer of the public-private partnership for the tube. We must welcome the fact that the Government are at last talking sense, but there are many questions to be answered about the PPP.
It is envisaged that three infrastructure companies will be involved in the PPP. Why is one of those companies, the sub-surface tube, being let to one bidder on a privileged basis, with no competition? How are we to know whether Railtrack is being forced to strike a good deal for the taxpayer? We shall never know, because there will be no competition. A deal has been sewn up between the Government and Railtrack.
There will be proper competition for the deep tube, and we welcome that. We understand why the Government made that decision; their original plans for the PPP were paralysed by the fact that Railtrack was by far the most credible bidder for all the tube, so it was difficult to get any competition in bids for any of the infrastructure companies. By giving Railtrack privileged access to the strategic part of the tube in which it is interested, the Government will ensure that there is better competition for the other parts of the tube.
That prompts the question of when the proposals will be implemented. The Government originally promised that the contracts would be tendered last autumn, but yesterday's statement was little more than a declaration of intent; there is no agreement between any of the parties and the Government say that only pre-qualification will be completed by this autumn.
The greatest irony is that we are expected to take the Government seriously when they have been complaining for two years that Railtrack is not investing enough, but they are now placing the future investment in the sub-surface tube in Railtrack's hands. How are we to have any confidence that Railtrack will invest enough if the Government do not have confidence that Railtrack has invested enough in its existing responsibilities? How will the Government ensure that Railtrack will invest in the tube? The lesson is that two years of paralysis, no decisions and no policy have left the Government in urgent need of taking the best available opportunity as the clock ticks on.
The Government need to learn that there is no point in briefing against Railtrack, damaging its credibility in the City and undermining its share price and its ability to raise the funds that the Minister wants it to invest. She needs to understand and explain to people that Railtrack profits


are good for investment because they will strengthen its balance sheet and enable it to borrow and to finance the investment that the Government want it to make in the surface railway as well as in the tube.
What rates of return will Railtrack be allowed to earn? Will there be track access charges for tube trains running on Railtrack-maintained track or will there be a simple rate of return contract? What would be a fair rate of return? What profit will Railtrack make on this deal? Who will provide the ultimate financial guarantees? Will there be a repeat of the channel tunnel rail link financing, in which Railtrack rode to the rescue of the deal, backed by £3.5 billion of Treasury guarantees? Much to the satisfaction of the Minister and her colleagues, Railtrack's profits on the channel tunnel rail link will be made on the back of those Treasury guarantees. Is that what is meant by a public-private partnership? At least our privatisation proposals for the tube would have put the risk entirely on the private sector so that it earned its profits rather than having them backed by the Government and the taxpayer.
The fundamental problem is the financial illiteracy of the PPP. A report published by Professor Stephen Glaister and others said:
The PPP threatens to impose burdensome long term pressures on Underground operating revenues, including the prospect of continually rising fairs, in order to pay back up front investment by private contractors.
In a public-private partnership, private sector investment does not come free; it has to be paid for. If one increases the capital in the business, one must increase the revenue to service the capital to provide the return. Where will that revenue come from? Will it come from higher fares, or from further subsidy to which the Treasury has yet to agree?
There are two underlying factors. First, the £7 billion that has been promised for investment in the tube does not compare favourably with the £7 billion invested in the tube during the last 10 years of Conservative Government. The proposals will not transform management attitudes or increase the efficiency of the operation of the tube, as privatisation is doing in the railways and other industries. The situation will stay the same, without a great bonanza of new finance.
The second factor is the deadline. In response to a parliamentary question on the comprehensive spending review, the Government made it clear that the Treasury will completely stop financing the tube in 2000–01. The deadline is therefore next April. The Minister and her colleagues say that they are not negotiating the PPP against a deadline, but I say to them, "Pull the other one." The Treasury is holding a gun to her head because the Government know that if they end up having to finance the tube out of her Department's expenditure, cuts will have to be made elsewhere to make up that shortfall, as the Government had to do as a result of cancelling our privatisation proposals.
I emphasise again that yesterday's statement was no more than a statement of intent, and there is no agreement. Ultimately, we must place our faith in Railtrack. It rescued the channel tunnel rail link and it will rescue part of the tube, but the Government need to promise themselves that they will have better relations with Railtrack than in the past to enable the company to raise the finance to do the job that the Government want it to do.

The Minister for Transport in London (Ms Glenda Jackson): I join other hon. Members who have contributed to this debate in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town (Mr. Fitzpatrick) on securing the debate. If timing is all, my hon. Friend has everything. It is entirely typical of the contributions of the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) that in his opening remarks he impugned the impartiality of the Speaker's Office in the selection of Adjournment debates.
With the exception of the hon. Member for North Essex, the other speakers in the debate, including my hon. Friends the Members for Battersea (Mr. Linton) and for Hackney, South and Shoreditch (Mr. Sedgemore), the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) and my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck), have all warmly welcomed the innovative proposals launched by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in his statement yesterday.
We propose to link up surface and underground rail to create, in a telling phrase, a joined-up London. Speaker after speaker referred to the benefits that those proposals will bring to their constituents and the importance of transport infrastructure for regeneration, job creation and tourism. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock), who has had no small hand in the groundwork for our innovative approach, spoke of the improvements to the environment that will result from the creation of a joined-up London.

Ms Harriet Harman: While my hon. Friend is on the subject of joining up London, may I make a plea for Peckham to be joined up? A railway line, which shakes people's windows, runs past Camberwell Station road, but there is no station on that road, so can we please have a station there again? Also, could Peckham be put on the tube map, otherwise people will think that it is a place to which one never goes or leaves? We want to share in the regeneration through the underground coming to Peckham.

Ms Jackson: I shall certainly pass on my right hon. Friend's concerns about the absence of Peckham from the tube map.
Speaker after speaker has not simply settled for the proposals on a joined-up London and a London orbital rail link, but used them to trigger their powers of imagination, creation, energy and innovation. They see the enormous potential in taking such an approach.
The only person who has significantly failed to see the benefits of the proposals is the hon. Member for North Essex, who expressed concerns about them. At the moment, London Transport and Railtrack are only exploring the details of the proposed public-private partnership, yet the hon. Gentleman worried whether the taxpayer would be getting a good deal—that comes from a member of a party which, in government prior to 1997, was responsible for selling our railway infrastructure to Railtrack for a fraction of its worth. His party spent hundreds of millions of taxpayers' pounds on the privatisation of our railways. It proposed privatisation of the tube—with only a reduced network and the requirement for public funding for at least four years following privatisation. Had such a privatisation gone


ahead, it would itself have taken more than four years to achieve. The contract for the channel tunnel rail link that his party signed collapsed almost a year after the ink had dried on it.
Railtrack indeed has had a major part to play in saving the channel tunnel rail link, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said. Everything is on time and on budget, and central and essential to that is the deal that he cut. Not one additional penny of public money was put into that restructured deal, which has ensured that the rail link can be saved. That deal means that, in an infinitely shorter period than the previous Administration envisaged, the channel tunnel rail link will revert to the private sector. There is only a 99-year lease on the line, and not a 999-year one, which the previous Administration signed away.
We have made it abundantly clear that not only the proposals launched yesterday but the overarching PPP, which will attract to the underground money that the lamentable stewardship of the previous Administration significantly failed to secure, will be approved only when we are assured that they will truly produce the best cost benefit for the taxpayer and provide the kind of service that both London and Londoners need.
Others who welcomed yesterday's announcement included those in the private sector, which is extremely interested in submitting—I trust—competitive bids for the PPP. Indeed, one senior source from the relevant part of private sector which will be bidding was quoted in yesterday's Evening Standard as saying:
This is good news … The private sector is confident it can provide dramatic improvements for the Tube.
In a somewhat schizophrenic approach to what has been proposed, the hon. Member for Lewes on one hand argued that there should be no restraint whatever on public spending, but on the other became much exercised over the costs of the PPP. We have made it abundantly clear that of course public sector comparators are part and parcel of ensuring that, once the decision is taken, it will be rooted in Government confidence that we have got the best possible value for the taxpayer, and that the service created will be the kind of 21st century public underground system that this capital city and the people who live in it so desperately need.
The proposals are part and parcel of an overarching approach to public transport in this great capital city and, as my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister said yesterday, of ensuring that this great city retains its competitiveness and becomes even greater globally. The proposals for the linking of surface and underground rail, which, as my hon. Friends have said, will also connect London's five airports to the channel tunnel rail link, are part of creating a truly global city for the people who live in it for the 21st century.
As all my hon. Friends have said, the proposals are to be greatly welcomed; they offer enormous benefits. Clearly, many details will have to be worked through.

Labour Member after Labour Member has pointed to the importance of integrating not only the lines but other transport modes and timetabling, providing better and much more accessible information. My hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town made a most telling point on accessible transport. The Government have made it clear that we believe that public transport must be accessible to all our citizens. Indeed, we are pleased that public transport providers are working towards that end.
Our proposals are aimed at righting the wrongs of the previous Administration's neglect and disinterest in funding London Underground by integrating public transport and providing the benefits of such transport over a range of areas. I have touched on some of them, as have all my hon. Friends. Regeneration, the potential for job creation and improvement in our environment are all part and parcel of improving the quality of life in this great city, ensuring that we leave for future generations a city not worse but infinitely better than that which we know.
Once again, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Poplar and Canning Town and all my hon. Friends on their positive contributions and welcome of the proposals announced to the House yesterday by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister.

Mr. Jenkin: Will the hon. Lady acknowledge that Railtrack is bailing the Government out on these projects and that it is therefore pointless for the Government to brief against it, because that would undermine its financial viability and credibility in the City, thus preventing it from raising the money required? Will she give an assurance that the Government's adversarial relationship with Railtrack is now at an end and that the questions between Railtrack and the regulator will be resolved as quickly as possible, so that confidence in Railtrack can be restored?

Ms Jackson: I realise that the hon. Gentleman is new to his elevated position, but I thought that even he would have been aware of the rail summit that was launched by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister and convened by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister. Every aspect of the railway industry was represented at it. The message from that summit, which was endorsed by all in the railway industry, was that the culture of blame is over and that the industry should work together.

Mr. Jenkin: It was a stunt.

Ms Jackson: Stunts are the only matter on which the hon. Gentleman could claim primacy over other hon. Members.
I am grateful to all my hon. Friends for endorsing the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister; it is indeed a vision. Under the proposals, the future for London is infinitely brighter.

Adoption (Children in Care)

Mr. Julian Brazier: I am most grateful for the opportunity to initiate this debate. I am especially grateful to have support in the Chamber today from the chairman of the all-party children group, the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mrs. Golding), who has so much knowledge on this issue and is greatly respected in the House; from the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, my right hon. Friend the Member for Haltemprice and Howden (Mr. Davis); and from the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), who is a former family lawyer.
Children are in care because they have been abused or neglected by their family or, in some cases, have no family. They are the most deprived children in Britain, and we, the state, are responsible for them. We owe them a special interest. We are failing them miserably.
The many foster parents and care workers in children's homes work very hard to care for the children for whom they are responsible, but the results of our so-called care system are extremely bleak. On average—and typically—children are moved from place to place once a year. They are far more likely than their contemporaries to become involved in child prostitution or drug dealing. Incredibly, boys leaving care are 50 times as likely as their contemporaries to end up in an adult prison and—perhaps saddest of all—a quarter of the girls who go through care become pregnant under age during the process.
Yet there is a tried and tested solution, supported by evidence of studies undertaken in the United Kingdom and many other countries. There is a really effective way to deal with these damaged children—adoption by a loving family. Adoption is not only much more successful than leaving children in care but far more successful—especially in the case of children who have been in care for a year or more—than sending them back to their original home. Some are sent back prematurely and unsuccessfully to their home, to be neglected and to be abused again. There are extreme cases, such as that of little Ricki Neave, who was returned to be tortured to death by his mother.
For a decade now, successive Ministers responsible for social services have spoken out strongly in favour of adoption. My right hon. Friend the Member for South—West Surrey (Mrs. Bottomley) made it a personal crusade. John Bowis, a former Member of the House, felt especially strongly about it and issued an excellent guidance circular. The hon. Member for Brent, South (Mr. Boateng) made it a personal crusade, and issued another excellent guidance circular, backed by some very strong words. I especially welcome the Under—Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), who has kindly come into the Chamber to reply to the debate. He has shown how strongly he feels about the issue.
All these years on, there has been no progress. On a five-year figures basis, things are have actually got fractionally worse. A fortnight ago, figures were published showing that the number of children in care has just increased again, from 51,000 in April 1997 to 53,000 in April 1998. Nearly half those children have been in care for more than two years and, incredibly, almost a quarter have been in care for five years or more.

Five years, moving from place to place; what sort of childhood is that? Yet the number of children adopted from care during that year was a miserable 2,000, barely covering the increase, and 4 per cent. of the total.
I have no doubt that those who want to defend the social services establishment will produce excuses. Some will say that there is a desperate shortage of adoptive parents—especially for older children—in some areas. Others will argue, as they did last year and the year before, that the figures are slightly out of date and that the trend has turned up just recently.

Mr. David Davis: I apologise to my hon. Friend; I must leave the Chamber shortly. I have asked the Audit Commission whether it will investigate the issue that he has raised. It has told me that the social services inspectorate will examine the implementation of the circulars that he mentioned, and I shall meet representatives of the inspectorate shortly to ensure that the points that my hon. Friend has raised are treated properly in a new inspection this winter.

Mr. Brazier: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that firm pledge of support. I am very grateful that so many Members of the House, from all parties, have expressed support on this issue.
Among the many dire conclusions of a study completed as recently as last month at Cardiff university by Murch and Lowe is the following:
some agencies rigidly opposed adoptions by foster carers even where the child was well-settled and had a good relationship with the carers.
Of course there are legal and administrative problems with adoption. I thank the director of social services in Durham for giving details of a case of which the Minister is aware, showing how, in certain cases, the Children Act 1989 can work against potential adoptive parents. None the less, the evidence points to the overriding need to break the anti-adoption culture among social workers in many local authorities, and the failure of elected members to supervise them.
The most striking evidence of negative attitudes emerges from studying variations between local authorities. Why do Hackney and Islington, both of which have a terrible record in some of their children's homes, score among the worst for adoptions of children in care? In a whole year, in each of those authorities, only 2 per cent. of children in care were adopted. That is barely a dozen children between them, of the hundreds that each of them have in care, yet nearby Camden and Greenwich are near the top of the league. Similarly, why does Bournemouth have quite a good rate—9 per cent.—when next-door Dorset has a miserable 3 per cent.? I receive many letters from adoptive parents, telling me that they were rejected for the flimsiest of reasons by one local authority, only to be accepted by a neighbouring one and carry out a successful adoption. We have a special duty to children in care, and we are failing to discharge it.
In spite of the excellent intention of Minister after Minister in the slot currently so well occupied by the hon. Member for Barrow and Furness, it is time for an end to exhortation and voluntary programmes. If the "Quality Protects" programme is to mean anything for these children, it must be given teeth. I should like to end with three short suggestions.
First, the current figures are voluntarily compiled, inconsistent and global. Instead, we need a central database of the name and outline details of every child in care. That would enable us to compile genuine league tables showing which local authorities—

Mr. Hilton Dawson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Brazier: I am afraid that I will not, because other hon. Members have arranged to speak.
A database would show, much better than the current figures, which local authorities are obviously dragging their feet, and it would prevent children from falling through the cracks.
Secondly, post-adoption support for parents should become the norm in all parts of the country and, in the case of the most damaged children, they should also have post-adoption allowances. Those parents are taking an enormous financial and administrative burden off our shoulders—off the state's shoulders—and into their homes.
Finally, these arrangements require some stick. The Secretary of State should give himself the power, or Parliament should give the Secretary of State the power, to remove adoption decisions from the worst local authorities and give them to a neighbouring authority or, if one is not available, to a voluntary organisation. We owe that to our most deprived children. If we continue to fail them, they will fail us and themselves, and the consequences for the future of our country will be dreadful.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) on his success in the ballot. His interest in adoption and the welfare of children generally is well known and respected in the House.
The Government believe in adoption. It is an important way of ensuring a better future for vulnerable children. It gives them stable, caring, loving families. We are determined to transform services for children and outcomes for children. We are determined that there will be a radical improvement in adoption services. The House should be in no doubt about that.
We want to make sure that rigid or fixed ideologies, which often relegate adoption to the bottom of the list of options, are effectively challenged at every opportunity. I shall spell out how the Government will take forward this transformation in adoption services, but first we should be clear about the statistics.
The basic facts are these: at any given time, about 53,000 children are being looked after by local authorities in England; a total of about 78,000 children are looked after by those authorities in the course of a year; approximately 2,000 looked-after children are adopted each year. The hon. Member for Canterbury mentioned that figure.
In the great majority of cases, children being looked after by local authorities do not need new families. Most will return home after a short period in care. Those

children, therefore, do not represent a potential harvest for prospective adopters. We need to be very clear about that point.
Work carried out recently within the Department revealed some interesting data concerning the statistical returns on adoption from local authorities. Again, the hon. Member for Canterbury referred to those. The study shows that although the number of children in care has fallen substantially over the past 20 years, the number adopted out of care has risen from about 2 per cent. to about 4 per cent.
Twenty years ago, there were about 90,000 children in care, and about 1,500 were adopted each year. Now there are just over 50,000 children in care at any time. About 2,000 children a year are adopted out of the care system. Last year saw the first rise for many years in the number of children in care being adopted. Although the rise was modest—about 100—it should be seen as a positive sign.
However, I am not complacent. I believe that some local authorities could and should be more proactive in their adoption work, and that can be achieved without its quality being compromised. Services should be better managed, and children should be adopted more quickly.
In this context the Department issued guidance to local authorities last August. The objective was to focus the attention of directors of social services and their senior managers on getting a better grip on planning for and monitoring the progress of children in their care. Since then, the Government's "Quality Protects" programme has been introduced.
The programme brings a new and challenging dimension to the overall improvement of children's services. To that end, the Government have made £375 million available to local authorities over three years in the form of a children's services special grant to assist them in implementing specific "Quality Protects" projects. The general aim of "Quality Protects" is the systematic transformation of the management of social services for children and the outcomes that they achieve.
Adoption is a key element of "Quality Protects". Its objectives include reducing the number of changes of main carers for children being looked after—the hon. Member for Canterbury referred to that chronic problem, which we are determined to address. Further objectives are to maximise the contribution that adoption can make to providing a permanent family for children in appropriate cases, and to reduce the period during which children are looked after before being placed for adoption or other suitable long-term care.
The "Quality Protects" programme was a key element in the Government's response to the children's safeguards review and will be the main focus for guiding and monitoring the improvements. It aims to maximise the use of adoption and to reduce delays while making the right decisions for individual children by bringing adoption back into the mainstream of options available for children.

Mr. Dawson: Does my hon. Friend agree that the prime factor that must always be considered is the best interests of the child? For children who remain in


long-term care, we need a continuum—a range of good-quality provision, including foster care, residential care and adoption.

Mr. Hutton: Of course I agree with my hon. Friend, as everyone in the House probably would. Our concern is that there has been evidence in the past that adoption has not been given the priority that it should have been.
The aim of "Quality Protects" is to maximise adoption and to reduce delays. The performance of local authorities will be measured against performance indicators and targets, which include addressing the delay in placing children with new families. We will in future measure the performance of each local authority through indicators that will show the percentage of looked-after children being adopted each year, the average time that children are looked after before placed for adoption and the breakdown of adoption placements.

Mr. Mark Oaten: Can the Minister confirm that the indicators will be made public? Will they be independently monitored—for example, by the Audit Commission as part of its systems charter work?

Mr. Hutton: The indicators certainly will be public information, and the Audit Commission will have an important role to play in the initiative.
I can announce today that targets will be set for the maximum time between entry into care and adoption. Those will be monitored by the social services inspectorate and the Audit Commission as part of the new performance assessment framework. Poor performance will not be tolerated.
The "Quality Protects" grant follows the production and evaluation of plans whose objectives include reducing delay and avoiding children drifting in the care system. Management action plans produced as part of the "Quality Protects" programme to deal with those issues are encouraging. Many authorities are making improvements to their management information systems, which will enable them to tackle more effectively the key indicators of delay and monitoring of children in care.
The development of placement choice is the largest single component attracting "Quality Protects" funding. With that money, local authorities intend to appoint specialist social work staff to recruit more adopters and foster carers, including families from ethnic minority communities, which will make available a wider choice of suitable placements. Other specialist staff will be appointed to progress children through the administrative and legal procedures to secure placements without undue delay.
I can tell the House today that under the "Quality Protects" initiative, £30 million will be spent this year on developing better placement choice, which will include adoption. We expect significant further additional expenditure in this area in the next two years.
Hon. Members will be aware that the Government's White Paper entitled "Modernising Social Services," which was published last November, included a proposal to establish commissions for care standards, which will have responsibility, for example, for regulating and inspecting foster care services and residential homes.
I am pleased to have this opportunity of announcing to the House that we intend that the new commissions should have responsibility for the inspection and regulation of all adoption services, including those operated by local authorities. In this way, adoption will be aligned with foster care services. It will also provide the basis for improving standards generally within the adoption service. We hope to introduce legislation to establish these new care commissions at the earliest possible opportunity.
In addition, through "Quality Protects", we will work with local authorities and the voluntary sector to improve the adoption service. We will monitor performance, improve statistics, promote new consortiums that can help to deal with the problem of inter-agency fees, improve planning, commission research and develop training. Through the social services inspectorate we shall examine closely the progress being made.
This summer, the social services inspectorate will launch a survey of every local authority, beginning in July, to establish progress in implementing the action recommended in the circular to which the hon. Member for Canterbury referred. That inspection will be followed by a supplementary data collection exercise and an inspection of some local authorities. The exercise will provide us with a general picture of the progress that local authorities are making in taking action on the circular and turning their "Quality Protects" action plans into reality.

Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to the Minister. All the announcements that he has made are extremely welcome. As he will need legislation to introduce such a broad range of clear performance criteria, will he consider incorporating in that legislation a reserve power to enforce it in the case of recalcitrant local authorities that do not respond voluntarily?

Mr. Hutton: The performance indicators that I described do not require primary legislation. We are already developing a performance assessment framework for social services. We are also developing the objectives of the "Quality Protects" programme as we go along. The hon. Gentleman's point about adoption services and a reserve power on the part of the Secretary of State will be addressed at some time in the future in legislation on the best value agenda. The best value programme will apply to local social services, and through that process there will be opportunities to explore issues such as those that the hon. Gentleman raises.

Gillian Merron: I am sure that the House will welcome the tremendous improvements that will become apparent in the quality of adoption services. However, can we look forward to greater openness about the criteria that are used to find the right adoptive parents for children and about how decisions are reached? Decisions must be made in the best interests of children, using the pool of would-be adoptive parents to the best advantage.

Mr. Hutton: Yes, there should be openness at all stages of the process. None of the criteria that are currently used are hidden or obscured from vision. We want people who are willing to adopt children to come forward. We do not want the system to deter or


inhibit good prospective adopters from offering their services to help better the interests of looked-after children.

Mrs. Llin Golding: This is a very important debate. Will my hon. Friend also look at the initial cost of applying and registering for adoption? It seems to vary from circumstance to circumstance, and I know that it deters people from putting themselves forward as adoptive parents even when there is a big cry for people to adopt.

Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to her role in all these matters. I am happy to look at the issue that she has raised, and if she or any other hon. Members have any specific proposals, I shall be happy to discuss them at any point in the future, either individually or with the all-party group on adoption.
The hon. Member for Canterbury also raised one important specific point: he called for work to be done to establish a national adoption register of children who might be available for adoption. I am not sure how the details would look, but I am happy to discuss the issue with the hon. Gentleman in more detail. We shall look forward to having that discussion with him.
I congratulate all hon. Members who have spoken in this debate today because it is clear that we all share a desire to see adoption brought back into the mainstream of children's services. That is certainly the Government's view. In that way, we can help to make sure that more children in the public care system than at present benefit from the security and protection that family life can bring.
I want to make it clear to the House that we shall continue the drive to improve access to adoption. I am sure that a lot remains to be done, but we have made a positive start in the right direction. We shall keep both the practice and the law under constant review, and shall not hesitate to take the necessary action in the future to ensure that looked-after children do not become the innocent victims of misplaced theory or ideology.
Adoption will often provide the best solution for a child being looked after by a local authority. We shall work with everyone of good will who shares our ambition to achieve better outcomes for those vulnerable children. Adoption can play a hugely beneficial role in that process, which is why we are absolutely determined to ensure that adoption practices are improved quickly throughout the country.

Third-world Debt

Mr. Tony Worthington: I hope that this debate will be welcomed in the context of the G7 summit, which will take place this weekend when the world leaders will meet. I am pleased that towards the top of their agenda will be a subject that should concern them greatly—the financial relationship between the richest and the poorest nations.
In previous years, that has been characterised in terms of aid—the rich giving to the poor. However, that is an inadequate picture of the interrelationship, because debt repayments or terms of trade have frequently been heavily skewed against the poorer countries. In the period from 1980 to 1994, the rich north paid Africa $278 billion less for its coffee, copper and other commodities than it would have paid had prices remained stable. In the same period, Africa's debt increased from $84 billion to $217 billion. Thus the rich north paid the poor south less and then lent it money to pay for those losses.
Also during that period, we saw a pattern of falling aid contributions—that certainly applied to this country—so that the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross domestic product became increasingly distant. We need to aim at what the Chancellor calls "the virtuous circle"—not just the reduction of debt, but increased aid flows and fairer trade policies.
It is gratifying to see that the British Government are now leading the way. Over the years, charities such as Oxfam have been critical of the British Government, and it gave me great joy recently to read in one of its publications that the best proposal on the table for relief of debt was from Britain. That is a change from the past.
The creation of the Department for International Development and the concerted action by the development and finance arms of the Government are making a real impact. Two Cabinet Ministers now work together on the issue and it is really making a difference. The work of the Select Committee on International Development in providing a focus on development issues in the House is also important. Our latest report is on the issue of debt. I commend it to the House and hope that it will influence the decisions that come out of the Cologne summit. I also hope that in future there will be a much greater concerted action between the Treasury, DFID and the Department of Trade and Industry to ensure that the debt, aid and trade aspects of government are linked.
I approve of much that has occurred. I applaud the proposal to sell off International Monetary Fund gold to finance debt cancellation. I applaud the proposals to review and improve the extremely inadequate HIPC—heavily indebted poor countries—scheme, which I shall discuss in more detail later. I applaud the Chancellor's drive to create $50 billion in debt relief and, as part of that commitment, to use unspent parts of the European development fund to finance debt relief. The Chancellor's proposal for a new millennium trust fund to finance additional aspects of HIPC are welcome. His drive to set up a millennium giving scheme so that the whole nation can be involved in debt relief is another good measure.
The growing movement by countries such as Canada and Norway to cancel debt bilaterally is welcome. Third-world debt as a political issue has grown in


importance. I pay tribute to the Jubilee 2000 campaign, which is helping politicians throughout the developed world to raise the issue of third-world debt.
A few years ago, it would have been unthinkable to see an article such as that which appeared in The Guardian on Monday, written jointly by the President of the World Bank, James Wolfensohn, and the Archbishop of Canterbury—the world of mammon and God joining together in an unprecedented way.

Mr. Brian Cotter: The thought occurred to me that, as politicians, it is important that we get the message over that many of us are concerned about this issue on humanitarian rather than political grounds. Other groups with whom we try to work on this matter sometimes feel that politicians are there only for political gain. I simply wanted to mark that card. Many of us are genuinely concerned about the issue and feel that we should link with Churches and take the same approach.

Mr. Worthington: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. We are human beings and this issue has captured our imagination. Several weeks ago, I went to St. Albans cathedral, which is not where I normally strut my stuff. Some 600 people had turned out to say that this issue brings together the political world and the world of the Churches in a way that allows them to play a shared role.
All those moves are welcome, but we are still in the foothills. A large number of poor countries are still being crippled by debt that they cannot possibly afford to pay back. The HIPC initiative, which was much heralded a few years ago, has been sadly inadequate. Only three countries have received help and even they were only marginally assisted. For example, Uganda's gains were wiped out by a collapse in coffee prices, which again rendered its debt unsustainable because the calculation of sustainable debt is based on the value of exports. I hope that that formula will at least be modified; calculating sustainable debt on the basis of export prices is a deeply flawed procedure and I hope that the G7 will look at that again.
It takes six years for debt relief to come through, which is hardly urgent action in the face of mass poverty, health services that do not exist and widespread illiteracy. Above all, the countries that have been through the HIPC process have gained little, because debt that was not being paid, and which could not have been paid anyway, has been cancelled. The people of those countries have received no tangible benefit from the relief of a purely notional debt.
The situation has been much worse since debt relief has had to be linked to IMF structural adjustment programmes. If one follows IMF programmes, one may receive debt relief; however, those programmes are geared not to immediate poverty relief, but to financial rectitude by bankers' standards. IMF programmes have been linked with mass unemployment as, for example, inefficient parastatals have been privatised.
The requirement for cuts in state spending on health and education has been particularly damaging, so IMF programmes have caused cuts in literacy programmes. According to the World Development Movement, the introduction of school-user fees in Ghana led to primary school drop-out rates of up to 40 per cent. How on earth

does one increase prosperity by increasing illiteracy? In Mozambique, health charges introduced under structural adjustment have meant that patients visiting hospital have to pay user charges, which simply means that people do not go to hospital. That is scorched-earth economics, which creates the stability of the desert.
One of the aims of the IMF is to increase per capita earning in those poor countries, but how does one achieve that by withdrawing reproductive health facilities? How on earth can a country whose population is doubling every 25 years increase its per capita earnings when family planning services are being withdrawn? That is doomed to failure. Mercifully, there seems to be a realisation that debt relief does not help poor countries unless it is linked with joined-up policies to lessen poverty. James Wolfensohn of the World Bank is recognising the importance of investment in health and education, good governance, social institutions and a worldwide drive against corruption.
If we want those countries to thrive economically, human rights issues have to come first. We have set targets, as has the world community, such as the reduction by half by 2015 of the proportion of people living in extreme poverty. Other targets, such as universal primary education by 2015, the elimination of gender difference in education, access to reproductive health services and reductions in maternal mortality, have also been set. Those targets must be at the centre of our debt relief and aid programmes.
The way to achieve prosperity and reduction of poverty is through ensuring that health and education services are expanded. In particular, we cannot have debt relief policies that do not leave countries and Governments the freedom to spend at least 20 per cent. of their revenue on health and education.
The African countries that have grown quickest are those, such as Botswana, with a good record on democracy and a relative lack of corruption. The ones that have sunk like a stone are those such as Nigeria, which have corrupt military rule and where corruption is the byword. If hon. Members want to see total privatisation, market rule and capitalism unrestricted by regulation and taken to their ultimate, they should go to Nigeria and see misery and the ultimate failure of trickle-down economics.
By separating debt relief from our aid and economic policies that support the poor we have made our debt relief policies ineffective—they have been countermanded by IMF structural adjustment programmes—so let me ask my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary what the Government are hoping for as they go into the Cologne summit. Will there be, alongside debt relief measures, proposals that will ensure that investment in human capital is increased? We cannot have structural adjustment programmes that increase poverty in the name of financial rectitude. How can we justify a country such as Mozambique having to pay 25 per cent. of its budget on debt servicing?
What action will the Government and their partners be taking to shorten the period in which countries qualify for debt relief? Six years is a ludicrously long time for a country to wait when it is drowning. Will the G7 change the definition of debt sustainability, as the principle of basing it on export sales seems to be seriously flawed?
I should be most grateful if my hon. Friend would tell me what action the Government are taking in respect of the cancellation of bilateral debt. I applaud my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for seeking to achieve movement among the whole G7 towards concerted action. We can tackle this problem only on a worldwide basis, but some countries, for the best of reasons, are going their own way. Canada and Norway are saying that they will cancel all their bilateral debt. We have a policy of cancelling debt that has been accrued on concessionary terms, but it would be interesting to know whether the Government intend to make any change in that and whether we will follow the path taken by Norway and Canada. I suspect that other countries will do so.
What will happen to increase the number of countries that will qualify for debt relief? There are many countries which we would all recognise as poor that do not qualify for debt relief. It would be interesting to know some of the detail of what is happening to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor's proposals for selling off IMF gold. Have they been generally accepted in the IMF? There have been positive moves recently; the change in the position of the German Government, for example, is very welcome. Is there still an ambition to sell off IMF gold, and how much will be sold?
What response are we receiving to the proposal that unused European Development Fund money, which has not been spent and is clogged up in the morass that is development in Europe, could be used to achieve debt relief? What has happened in respect of the imaginative proposal of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor for a millennium fund to aid debt relief?
The world is looking for boldness from Cologne. The biggest issue facing the world has to be the abject poverty of many of its citizens. The cost of many of those proposals is nil in effective terms. Many debts will not be paid because they cannot credibly be paid. The EDF money is budgeted anyway and the sale of IMF gold would inconvenience no one. Many of the other costs would be spread over many years. The benefits that we would gain through the increased prosperity of the developing world would far outweigh any cost.
I know that Treasury Ministers met last weekend to work out their response on third-world debt. I applaud the lead taken by the Chancellor, but he may be dragged back by other G7 participants. I hope that this weekend the Prime Minister will exercise real leadership, and will make our G7 partners see that they can make history by taking this issue forward and by building on the momentum in the world for the relief of third-world debt.
I look forward to hearing what my hon. Friend the Minister has to say about our intentions and about what we have achieved as we are poised for the meeting of the Finance Ministers of the G7 countries and the leaders of the world in Cologne this weekend.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mrs. Barbara Roche): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on securing this Adjournment debate, especially given the context in which he has made his remarks. It is well known that he has been interested in these matters for many years, and he has considerable expertise. I am delighted to respond to him.
It is particularly pertinent to discuss this issue in the lead up to the Cologne summit. My hon. Friend rightly mentioned the work of Jubilee 2000, which has involved

many people, including the Churches and voluntary groups in our constituencies. Its campaigning work has highlighted this problem. I was pleased to be in Edinburgh on Saturday to participate in the well attended proceedings there.
The debate is timely because last Friday the Select Committee on International Development published a welcome and useful report on international debt. It strongly endorses the Government's action and proposals, and acknowledges that the United Kingdom is at the forefront of debt relief. As is normal practice, the Government will respond to the report in due course.
As I said, the debate is timely because of the discussions in Cologne. I shall address that issue in more detail, but first I want to dwell on the question of why debt is an issue. We all know why it is important to move forward on debt and poverty relief for the poorest countries of the world. We all know of countries that are weighed down by the burdens of being forced to spend more on their debt interest payments than they are able to invest in the young, the sick, the undernourished and the poor.
Debt relief is an economic issue, because a mountain of inherited and immovable debt stands in the way of economic development in Africa and elsewhere. That is why it is entirely appropriate for the Treasury and the Chancellor of Exchequer to be heavily involved in this issue, as they have been. Debt relief is also a moral issue, and I make no bones about it. The debt is a burden imposed from the past on the present. A third of the world's children go to bed hungry: 30,000 children die every day from preventable diseases and 1.3 billion people live in poverty.
What does the debt burden do? It deprives millions of people of their chance of a future. It prevents them from breaking out of the vicious circle of poverty, and it prevents investment in what really counts—health, education, and the advancement of economic opportunity. My hon. Friend was right to dwell on that.
I shall outline how the Government are constructively engaging and leading our international partners in the efforts to tackle this most important issue. I agree with my hon. Friend that the 1996 HIPC—heavily indebted poor countries—initiative is delivering too little, too late for the poorest countries. It is not helping the poorest countries to tackle their chronic poverty, and it is not helping them to invest in a foundation for sustainable long-term growth—in particular, investment in primary education and health care. That is why we have been campaigning for faster, deeper and wider debt relief.
In September 1997, we launched the Mauritius mandate, which is aimed at speeding up the process, so that three quarters of those countries should have reached firm decisions on the amounts and terms of debt relief by 2000.
At the annual meetings of the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank last October, we secured a fundamental review of the HIPC initiative. Equally important, we secured the recognition of the developed countries—in particular our G7 partners—that the current scheme required major changes to deliver its key objectives of debt sustainability and, more importantly, alleviation of poverty.
Last weekend, the Chancellor secured the agreement of his G7 Finance Minister colleagues to a package that will lead to the cancellation of $50 billion of debt by 2000. Subject to minor details, final agreement is expected at the summit this Cologne weekend.
We are committed to the agreed international target of halving the proportion of people living in abject poverty. On 3 March, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development set out a comprehensive four-point plan to deliver a new contract with the poorest countries.
The plan proposed, first, that by the end of 2000 we move from only a couple of billions of debt relief, achieved in the last few years, to a cut in the debt of $50 billion. Secondly, it proposed that we increase aid—in the form of grants, not loans—flowing from the developed world to the developing world to a total of $60 billion.
Thirdly, our plan proposed that we sell the gold—$1 billion to $2 billion of IMF gold—and establish a new millennium trust fund to pay for this enhanced initiative. Fourthly, we challenged the British public to join us and to double their charitable giving to $1 billion through millennium gift aid. We know how generous people in this country are, and that they are conscious of the problem. I am sure that all hon. Members will have received representations on this matter. There is a willingness among the British public to move forward on this issue.
Last week, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for International Development set out our proposals to translate debt relief quickly into real financial improvements for the countries concerned, and to make debt relief an essential part of poverty alleviation. We also proposed last week to shorten the timetable to ensure that the countries that have been involved in the HIPC initiative feel the benefits of debt relief after three years rather than the current maximum of six years. My hon. Friend made that point well in his speech.
We need to make real headway in regard to the large amount of aid debt that is outstanding to HIPCs. We also need to increase the amount of aid given by developed countries to poor countries and to refocus future aid, providing it in the form of grants rather than loans.
We have taken the lead on the international stage in trying to unshackle the poorest countries from their unsustainable debt burdens. We have written off, unilaterally, $5 billion of Overseas Development Agency debt; we have increased the aid budget by 28 per cent. in real terms, which means £1.6 billion over the next three years; and we have guaranteed that all future aid will take the form of grants rather than loans.
It is clear that, over time, an enhanced HIPC initiative will cost more. It is impossible to estimate the size and timing of the costs precisely, but if an enhanced initiative is to become a reality, we need a credible and robust approach to tackling them. I have already mentioned our call for the sale of gold to meet the extra costs that fall to the fund.
Last month, my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Secretary of State for International Development proposed the establishment of a millennium

trust fund, which will finance the setting up of a more ambitious framework for faster, wider and deeper debt relief. The new fund will consist of the resources of the existing HIPC trust fund, to which Britain has already pledged $71 million. We have called on the world's richest countries to increase their contribution. It is within their power to provide a better deal for poor countries, and for the world's poorest people.
Last week, in a further demonstration of our commitment, my right hon. Friends pledged another $100 million to the millennium trust fund. That took our total pledge to $171 million, which is more than any other country has committed. We now encourage our international colleagues, and possibly the private sector here, to make their donations. We have called on the European Commission to contribute resources from the European Development Fund to the millennium trust fund, and we have called for the EDF to contribute 1 billion euro, over time, to the costs of debt relief. In the coming weeks, we will press our partners in Europe to support that call.
We are convinced that such resources could make a major contribution to debt relief, and therefore to the alleviation of poverty in the poorest countries, enabling them to tackle the greatest problem of our generation: the lack of primary education and health care for the poorest and most deprived to which my hon. Friend referred. Those resources can provide the key that will unlock the door to escape from chronic poverty.

Ms Julia Drown: The Government have a very good record on both debt reduction and the alleviation of poverty, but will my hon. Friend assure us that their determination to tackle those problems will not cease until millions of children no longer die unnecessarily every year because their countries have no basic health or education services?
Yesterday I hosted a very successful meeting with Christian Aid. There was a huge response from Members of Parliament, all of whom were very concerned about the Cologne summit. They were keen to back the Government—to urge them to go to Cologne and ensure that achievements were made, and the determination maintained, until real improvements were brought about for the benefit of the millions of people throughout the world who depend on the attaining of the goals outlined by my hon. Friend.

Mrs. Roche: I thank my hon. Friend for making that point; I know that she takes a great interest in these matters.
We want to establish a new dialogue between debtors and institutions. Our commitment is essential. The IMF programmes clearly protect spending on health and education, and my hon. Friend need not doubt that we shall use our best endeavours in this regard.
Our actions have had a galvanising effect. Over the past few months, many developed countries—and all the G7 countries—have set their own proposals for reform of the HIPC arrangements. Although the emphases are different, the initiatives have a common theme: the need for a more ambitious framework that will provide faster, wider, deeper debt relief, remove unsustainable debt burdens and allow resources to be reallocated to programmes that reduce poverty.
In achieving those aims, we must work together. The days of unilateral action are gone. The best way forward is now through collective international effort, which means new co-operation and partnerships between donors and recipient countries. Working together, we can achieve much more than we can when working alone.
We also want debtor countries themselves to be involved in the debate on debt relief. That brings me back to a point that I made to my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie. The HIPC capacity building programme that we are helping to finance is working with 21 countries to improve their debt management, so that they can understand their debt position, take control of it, and adopt the right policies on new borrowing. It is important for poor countries to take the opportunities open to them to press their own agendas.
Although debt relief is important, it is not an end in itself. The United Kingdom's bilateral aid programme for HIPCs is eight times as large as the receipts of interest payments. Debt reduction must be accompanied by appropriate aid programmes and economic management. The billions saved in debt-servicing payments must not be wasted on weapons or lost to corruption; they must be invested in health, education and economic development.
The international community is placing more emphasis on the assessment of the impact of policies and programmes on the poor. Greater efforts are being made to attend to their priorities, and to build consensus by means of consultation with civil society. However, much remains to be done. That applies to all development programmes, not just those that are funded through debt relief.

Mr. Cotter: May I take up a point made by the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie

(Mr. Worthington)? Is it not important to ensure that, after the provision of debt relief, democracy is delivered and Governments use the money wisely?

Mrs. Roche: That is a good point. We are certainly committed to achieving that end.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: Will the Minister give way?

Mrs. Roche: Yes, very briefly. I have only a couple of minutes.

Mrs. Gillan: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. This is a half-hour Adjournment debate, and Opposition Front Benchers do not normally participate in such debates.

Mrs. Roche: With your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will give way briefly.

Mrs. Gillan: I thank the Minister. I merely wish to express the Opposition's support, to congratulate the hon. Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) on raising such an important matter, and to ask the Minister to undertake to place in the Library, immediately after the summit, a report relating specifically to this part of the negotiations at Cologne.

Mrs. Roche: We make sure that all our reports are disseminated in the normal way after a summit.
I am very pleased to have been able to reply to the debate. We must ensure that this item is placed at the top of our agenda, and that is what the Government are doing.

Asthma

Mr. Mark Oaten: It is often dangerous to draw too many conclusions from statistics, but I start the debate by drawing to the House's attention a few alarming statistics. In the past 10 years in this country, the number of children with asthma has doubled. In the United Kingdom, 1.5 million children now have asthma. What is deeply concerning is that that is one of the worst rates in Europe. More troubling than that is the fact that the trend appears to be rising.
Those are harsh facts. I want to look in a little more detail at some of the reasons behind the increase in asthma and to give the Minister a chance to set out the Government's response to those alarming figures.
Earlier this year, I carried out a survey of schools and general practitioner practices in the Winchester constituency to try to establish whether what individuals were saying to me in surgery and in writing was true. There was clearly a perception in Winchester that the number of children seeing GPs about asthma had increased.
I would not for a minute try to claim that my constituency office, with all its volunteers, is anything like MORI, the opinion survey organisation, or Government scientific advisers, although these days one is never quite sure, but we carried out a survey of schools and doctor practices in the constituency. Thirty-three schools and seven GP practices responded. Two thirds of the practices stated that, in just the past couple of years, there had been an increase in the number of children with asthma coming to their practice. Similar results came from schools. Over half the teachers involved claimed that there was a much bigger increase in children coming to school with asthmatic problems.
As I say, the findings in Winchester are certainly not scientific, but they appear to be backed by national research work, particularly by the National Asthma Campaign. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House will know that, last week, the campaign revealed the results of its most recent audit; it audits asthma trends annually. It announced that a study in Leicester had found that asthma and wheezing in children under five had doubled in that location in less than a decade. In 1990, only 12 per cent. of children had been diagnosed with asthma. By 1998, the figure had risen to 21 per cent. Wheezing attacks within a 12-month period had doubled from 12 per cent. in 1990 to 23 per cent. in 1998.
The National Asthma Campaign concludes that approximately one in seven children aged between two and 15 have asthma symptoms that require treatment; that is where we draw the figure of 1.5 million children from. Although I want to concentrate purely on the effects of asthma on children, we should not forget that more than 1.9 million adults—those over 16—suffer from asthma.
All those figures and findings suggest that we have a major problem with asthma among children. I conclude that it will be in danger of getting seriously out of control if the trend goes upwards.
As well as the obvious distress and suffering that asthma causes children and their parents, the increases have other severe implications, not least the cost and

burden to the national health service. The total cost of asthma to the health service is estimated to be about £709 million, at today's figures. In addition, we should consider the cost involved in providing inhalers and asthma prescriptions, which is estimated to be about £500 million.
The National Asthma Campaign says that, if we go beyond child asthma and take into consideration the number of days lost and the burden on society that asthma brings, the figures increase dramatically and society has a major problem in relation to the costs involved in the health service. That, in itself, should be an argument for some urgent action to tackle the problem.
There are other hidden costs, particularly the cost to a child's education. The rising number of children with asthma means a rising number are off sick, missing school days. Having asthma is one of the most common reasons for children missing school or pre-school nursery.
In 1995, "Blue Peter" carried out an asthma survey. More than 10,000 children responded. Eight per cent. said that they had missed at least a month of school as a result of problems with asthma. A recent large study of school children aged between 12 and 14 found that a substantial proportion of adolescents had asthma symptoms that interfered with their schooling and day-to-day lives. Another concern was that many of them were not receiving treatment for that asthma. One third of the children who took part in the survey and had experienced asthma symptoms said that they were not receiving some form of medical support to back them up. That under-diagnosis of asthma and the consequential missed school days cannot be good for the children's education, or their social relationships
The most worrying factor is that we do not really know, or we do not appear to know, why all that is taking place. After we carried out the survey in Winchester, I was surprised at the findings and asked to see a Dr. Roberts, who is the asthma specialist at the Royal Hampshire county hospital in Winchester. Politicians always seek a simple answer. I just asked, "Why is it happening? What are the reasons? There must be a simple explanation."
In addition, we were involved in a battle to try to persuade the public that it would be sensible to build a park-and-ride facility in Winchester. I wanted to be able to use the asthma results to support the case for the park-and-ride facility to keep cars out of the city centre, but clearly it is not as simple as that.
The doctor explained—and my research since explains—that there are endless theories as to the cause of the big increase in asthma. Pollution and traffic are obviously the simplest arguments that people can advance, but one of the most compelling arguments that I have heard is that living in a cleaner society has an impact. In the past 10 or 15 years, facilities in homes have meant that they are cleaner. Whereas before, in a dirtier house, children had a chance to build resistance to viruses, in a cleaner society, individuals and children do not build up resistance and then are more vulnerable and susceptible to asthma.
Other theories have been put forward. Only yesterday, the World Health Organisation announced details of a study that it had undertaken in Europe, which led it to claim in the press:
Car fumes kill more than crashes.


Again, it had clear evidence that there was a link between pollution from cars and increased cases of asthma.
I have heard the other argument—particularly in a rural constituency such as Winchester—that changing farming patterns are one of the causes. Of course, the most obvious link that people are making at the moment is with genetically modified crops. They are asking whether those crops will have an impact. Letters from constituencies following publicity about the survey suggested that oil-seed rape was an increasing concern.
We know that, recently, farmers have turned much more to growing oil-seed rape. Indeed, one of ways in which to decrease transport pollution is to have transport run on oil-seed rape, but by growing more of the crop we could create asthmatic problems. An organisation representing hyperactive children, which has concerns about food additives, has raised concerns to the effect that changing diets, and the things that we are adding to food and giving to children, may be a cause.
The only conclusion that I can draw from all that information is that the only thing individuals agree on is that no one really knows what the causes of the increases in asthma are. That needs to be the starting point for Government action. We need to be able to have more research to establish what exactly the cause is.
I am aware that the Government are active on the issue. I make it clear that I did not secure the debate to criticise the Government for any inaction. Rather, I should like to press the Minister for some more information about the research that is taking place.
In a written answer to me last Friday, the Minister was helpful in explaining what the Government were doing in relation to research. He said that they were supporting a major initiative on the relationship between air pollution and respiratory diseases. Will the Minister use the debate to confirm when that report and the conclusions will be made available, and if they will be made available publicly? Will he go further and explain why the link is being made between air pollution and respiratory diseases? Are the Government planning any research to look at the connection between respiratory problems such as asthma and other issues apart from air pollution, some of which I have touched on; or is it the Government's conclusion that air pollution must be the main reason—which is why they are putting energy into research in that particular area?
I should be grateful if the Minister let me know whether the Government had plans specifically to examine the number of children who have asthma. I have quoted some data and a figure, but judging by a written reply that the Minister gave me, which looked at the number of children going into accident and emergency departments and having in-patient care in hospitals, it appeared—unless I misread the data—that there had been a decline in the number of children going into hospital with asthmatic problems. There seems to be a contradiction between research done by campaign groups and some of the Government's data. Is it perhaps worth while investing additional resources in detailed research to discover whether the increases that I have described are indeed occurring?
The Government commission an annual health survey for England. According to the 1997 survey, 29 per cent. of boys and 18 per cent. of girls aged between two and 15 have been diagnosed with asthma at some time.

I should be fascinated to know—perhaps the Minister will write to me on it—why boys feature so much higher than girls in those figures, and how those figures compare with previous studies done by the Government on the matter.
We should certainly be reassured that the Government are taking the issue seriously, and that their programme to address it includes much research. For me, however, the critical issue is whether the scope of the research is sufficiently wide. If it is not, the research will raise more questions than it provides answers.
I should like also to consider ways in which the Government might assist those working in the public health field, and particularly in education, in dealing with some of the consequences of childhood asthma. Currently, the response of various local education authorities to the growing problems of asthma in schools is very mixed. A recent study examined specifically how LEAs were tackling the problem, by sending, in late 1998, a questionnaire to more than 200 LEAs. Although only preliminary research has been done, and the results of the study have not yet been made public, those results are a matter of concern.
One third of LEAs said that they do not have a policy on how to deal with asthma in schools, and less than half of LEAs and schools said that they had in place a protocol on what to do if a child has an asthma attack in school. To my surprise and horror, almost half the LEAs said that they did not have a commitment to a no-smoking policy in school—which is surely one of the causes of asthma attacks.
I hope that, when the study is complete, the organisation involved will send the findings to the Government for consideration. Today, however, I should like to press the Minister to have a word with his colleagues in the Department for Education and Employment, to ascertain what advice the Government are giving to LEAs. Perhaps he will also use his reply to clarify who is responsible and accountable for securing health in schools. Although I know that there have recently been Government announcements on that issue, it would be tremendously helpful if he could say who has responsibility as the lead organisation in addressing it.
I hope too that the Government, when they are considering good health in schools, will consider also the issue of asthma, and good practice across England. Some local authorities have been working with local asthma groups to establish very good practice.
Something is wrong—and it is always very troubling when one does not know the cause of a problem. Moreover, recent trends seem to be going in entirely the wrong direction. The problem has to be tackled, not only because of the uncomfortable and unpleasant nature of asthma both for children and for parents seeing their children suffering from asthma attacks, but because it is becoming an increasing burden on the health service. The problem has to be tackled also because it is affecting children's ability to have an enjoyable childhood and to play their full part in the education system.
I hope that the Government are taking the issue seriously, and that, in a few moments, the Minister will be able to assure us that the research being done is sufficiently broad to ensure that, perhaps in a year's time, we shall better understand the problem, so that we are able to reassure parents who have children with asthma.


Once we have a greater understanding, perhaps the Government will be able to implement policies to tackle the causes of that growing problem.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. John Hutton): I congratulate the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) on his good fortune in the ballot, and particularly on dealing with this subject today. He has done the House a good service in drawing attention to some of the concerns that he has expressed. I am also delighted that he found my parliamentary answers helpful. It is the first time that anyone has said that to me, and I am deeply grateful to him for doing so. Perhaps we shall have to go back to the Department and re-examine how we answer questions, but I am grateful to him for those comments.
The hon. Gentleman raised some specific issues on research and on the direction of the Government's research programme, and I shall try to address them later in the debate. He also raised some technical issues, on which he said that he would be happy for me to write to him. I shall certainly take him up on that, and am sure that we shall correspond on some of those technical issues.
I reassure the hon. Gentleman, and the House, that the Government share the widespread concern that he has articulated so well today on the burden resulting from asthma, particularly among children. Asthma is the most common chronic disease in the United Kingdom. It is also the most frequently reported cause of longstanding illness among children.
Children are much more likely than adults to be treated as hospital in-patients for asthma: children under 15 currently account for almost one half of the ordinary admissions and day cases for asthma. Only 2 per cent. of the approximately 1,300 asthma deaths a year in England are among children. Although each of those deaths is a tragedy, research suggests that many of them could have been prevented by better adherence to treatment.
Asthma has a considerable financial cost—to which the hon. Gentleman referred—in addition to its human cost. The national health service spends about £600 million annually in treating asthma, including £466 million on general practitioner prescriptions in the most recent year for which data are available. We should also not forget the indirect costs of asthma, including, for children, days off from school. The hon. Gentleman was quite right to mention those other costs in his speech.
The hon. Gentleman was correct also to say that there are no comprehensive data on the number of people, of any age, with asthma. However, on the basis of all the available information, it has been estimated that
the prevalence of asthma sufficiently severe to require regular medical supervision"—
in hospital or other settings—
is from 4 to 6 per cent. in children.
That estimate was quoted in "Asthma: An Epidemiological Overview", which was produced, in 1995, by the Department of Health's central health monitoring unit.
According to the health survey for England 1997, 23 per cent. of boys and 18 per cent. of girls aged two to 15 had been diagnosed at some time in the past as

suffering from asthma. Similarly, in the international study of asthma and allergies in childhood which was published last year in the British Medical Journal, 20 per cent. of surveyed children aged between 12 and 14 had had a diagnosis of asthma at some time.
The prevalence of asthma was, therefore, apparently rising for three decades, up to the late 1980s or early 1990s. Since then, hospital admissions, GP consultations and mortality rates have all been levelling off, perhaps reflecting more effective treatment and higher quality medical care. However, local studies—such as the one conducted in Leicester, to which both the hon. Gentleman and the National Asthma Campaign, in its "National Asthma Audit 1999/2000", referred—suggest that, in children at least, the prevalence of asthma may still be on the increase.
We do not know for certain what causes asthma, but it is likely that an interplay between genetic and environmental factors is an important factor. It is a commonly held belief that the rise in the prevalence of asthma must be the result of air pollution, particularly from motor vehicles. However, increasing levels of asthma have been recorded in countries such as Sweden, Fiji and New Zealand, which do not suffer from high levels of air pollutants.
The Department of Health's committee on the medical effects of air pollutants, in its 1995 report on "Asthma and Outdoor Air Pollution", concluded:
with regard to the initiation of asthma (that is, causing the disease in the first place), most of the available evidence does not support a causative role for outdoor air pollution".
Therefore, although exposure to air pollutants can produce a worsening of symptoms in those suffering from asthma, factors other than air pollution—allergens and the role of infections, for example—are likely to have had more of an impact on the number of people suffering from asthma.
Nevertheless, air pollution is associated with asthma attacks and with other diseases of the lung and heart. We remain concerned to investigate those issues further, and also to improve air quality in the United Kingdom. In 1997, the Government published a national air quality strategy, which provides health-based standards and objectives for eight of the main air pollutants that can affect human health, including carbon monoxide, lead, nitrogen dioxide, ozone, sulphur dioxide and other chemicals. The strategy brought together existing systems for controlling pollution and introduced a new system of local air-quality management.
We have reviewed the national air quality strategy to examine how further improvements in air quality could be made more effectively and more rapidly. In January 1999, we issued the report of the review for consultation. The consultation period closed in April, and the outcome will be published later in the year.
Advice to the general public about air quality is available through Teletext and Ceefax and through the air quality helpline. The Department of Health and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions work together to determine how simple messages about the health effects of air pollutants can best be communicated to the public. A leaflet, "Air pollution—what it means for your health", was published last year.
The hon. Gentleman repeatedly raised the question of research. The Government continue to sponsor research on both asthma in general and possible links between


outdoor and indoor air pollution and asthma. A major £3 million research programme on outdoor air, jointly funded by the Department of Health, the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Medical Research Council, has recently come to an end, and it will be fully evaluated toward the end of this year. The Department of Health intends to issue a further call for research proposals shortly, predominantly on the health effects of outdoor air pollution. A joint Department of Health/Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions £1 million three-year research programme on indoor air is currently under way, and a number of studies are examining the effects of air pollutants on people with asthma.
The Medical Research Council spends about £2 million a year on research into prevention and treatment of asthma and related matters. The National Asthma Campaign is managing, on behalf of the NHS Executive, the NHS national research and development programme on asthma management. We welcome the participation of, and the close relations we have with, the National Asthma Campaign. The hon. Gentleman expressed concern about the future direction of asthma research, but perhaps he will draw comfort from the fact that the NAC plays a leading role in determining the course and conduct of the research effort. He also asked about the publication and review of research data: we always publish that information.
In the NHS, management of asthma, in children as in adults, mainly takes place in primary care. The Department of Health has provided a national framework for the provision of general medical services for asthma in the chronic disease management programme. In that programme, GPs set up and oversee organised programmes of care, with clearly understood arrangements for any care shared with the secondary sector; 94 per cent. of GPs now participate in the CDMP for asthma.
We recognise that proper management of asthma during school hours is a very real issue for children, their parents and their teachers, and the hon. Gentleman is right to draw attention to that problem. That is why we have ensured that information about asthma has been provided on the "Wired for Health" website, which was launched in March as part of the national grid for learning and which provides teachers with health information on a range of conditions. "Wired for Health" is the Government's main communication tool for our healthy schools initiative, which is jointly funded by Department of Health and the Department for Education and Employment and is a key part of our strategy for "Our Healthier Nation".
The "Our Healthier Nation" Green Paper set out the Government's philosophy on improving health in England. We proposed that our health strategy should have twin overarching aims: to improve the health of everyone, and to reduce health inequality—to narrow the gap between those with the best health and those with the worst. We proposed to achieve those aims by introducing the concept of a contract for health, whereby Government, local organisations and individuals all recognise and act on their share of responsibility for improving health.
At Government level, we recognise that we have a responsibility to tackle the underlying causes of ill health: poverty, poor housing, unemployment and pollution. Government must take the action which only they can so that local organisations can play their part and individuals

can make the decisions that allow them to take control of improving their own health. The "Our Healthier Nation" White Paper, which is due shortly, will set out the detail of how we envisage that happening and developing.
Returning to the subject of the "Wired for Health" website, I believe that it demonstrates the commitment to partnership which is a fundamental part of the Government's approach to health issues. It gives access to the National Asthma Campaign's own material on asthma. In respect of asthma in school, the website builds on work previously undertaken with the National Asthma Campaign on the guidance entitled "Supporting pupils with medical needs", which was issued jointly by the Department for Education and Employment and the Department of Health under the previous Administration, in 1996.
The NHS is making increasing use of the internet and NHSnet for posting reference material. Over the next couple of years, a number of developments should help to improve both access to and the quality of information available to the public on health and health services. For example, work is taking place to develop a national electronic library for health, to provide patients, public and clinicians with access to accredited health and health care information. The national electronic library for health will include information on healthy life styles, medical conditions, diseases and treatments, and about the effectiveness of different treatments; it will also provide a reference guide to who does what in the NHS. The library project is working in conjunction with a range of other related initiatives, including NHS Direct, which has an important contribution to make in this respect and which will be available in all parts of England by the end of next year.
I have referred several times to the National Asthma Campaign. In recent years, the Department of Health has been able to give that organisation a project grant to create a childhood asthma education officer post, as well as grants towards the costs of its asthma helpline. We also assisted the introduction of a new personal asthma card—the "Control your asthma" card—to help sufferers to manage their condition. I should like to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the sterling work that the National Asthma Campaign does to provide support and information for children and all people with asthma and their carers. We greatly value the good working relationship that we have with the National Asthma Campaign.
Let me assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government take asthma, not least as it affects children, very seriously indeed. We shall continue to do all we can to improve knowledge of the causes of asthma and to make life as normal as possible for all those who suffer from it—perhaps I should have declared an interest earlier, for I too am an asthmatic. The Government will continue to work with medical and other health professionals, the National Asthma Campaign and all those with an interest in the field, so as to ensure that our commitment to and ambition for a first-class NHS for all the people of our country applies as much to those who suffer from asthma as to those who suffer from any other condition.

It being before Two o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the House lapsed, without Question put.

Sitting suspended, pursuant to Standing Order No. 10 (Wednesday sittings), until half-past Two o'clock.

Oral Answers to Questions — INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

The Secretary of State was asked—

Oral Answers to Questions — HIPC Initiative

Mr. John Heppell: What plans she has to propose amendments to the heavily indebted poor countries initiative. [84973]

Mrs. Maria Fyfe: What assessment she has made of the likely progress at the G7 summit in ensuring recognition that debt repayment conditions should not entail less money being available for basic health and education programmes. [85982]

Mr. Chris Mullin: What recent progress has been made on debt relief for the poorest countries; and if she will make a statement. [85984]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are pressing for a revised heavily indebted poor countries—HIPC—initiative to provide at least twice as much debt relief twice as fast and for the provision of debt relief to be more tightly linked to policies that help reduce poverty.
We are pleased that at their meeting in Frankfurt on 12 June, G7 Finance Ministers were able to agree that a substantial improvement to HIPC was required. G7 leaders will be discussing that further this week and we look forward to the announcement of a package on debt relief at the weekend. The final details of the new HIPC package will be settled at the annual meetings of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in September. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I also announced last week that we will be contributing a further $100 million to the trust fund to help the multilateral development banks meet their share of the cost of debt relief.

Mr. Heppell: I thank my right hon. Friend for her response. Will she join me in congratulating all the non-governmental organisations and Churches that have campaigned so magnificently to ensure that world debt is high on the agenda? Will she also join me in asking them to continue their campaign in Japan, France and the United States, which do not take the same view as this country on the subject? Will she assure me that our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will use the same determination, leadership and drive to push for the best deal for the world's poorest people as he has shown over Kosovo?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that question. I am pleased to join him in congratulating the Churches and the NGOs on their debt campaign. We have never seen anything like it—an international civil society movement that has moved the policy of the most powerful countries in the world. Soon after we formed our Government and my right hon. Friend the Chancellor made his Mauritius mandate speech, saying that we wanted to speed up debt relief, he and I went to the annual

meetings of the World Bank and the IMF and could not get support. By the time that the leaders of the G7 got to Birmingham, with all those people on the streets, we had made some advances. It has been a wonderful campaign. I assure my hon. Friend that our right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will take further the efforts that my right hon. Friend the Chancellor has made at the G7 finance meetings. The campaign must continue, because the programmes that will really help the poor will not be finalised until the annual meetings of the bank and the fund in September.

Madam Speaker: I call Mrs. Fyfe. She is not here. I call Mr. Mullin. He is not here.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I appreciate the Secretary of State's response and I encourage others to back her position. She will be aware that banks do not normally lend money unless there is collateral. Are any steps being taken to support the other banks that are giving low interest rates to the world's poorest, so that they might become self-supporting and help to relieve poverty?

Clare Short: I apologise to the hon. Gentleman for standing throughout his question. I got out of synch because two hon. Members were missing. The hon. Gentleman must be referring to micro credit schemes, which offer small credits to the world's poorest. I agree that that is a fantastically important movement. It is important that the banks should not always depend on aid contributions, but should become self-sustaining small people's banks. We are trying to work with others in the international system to achieve that.

Mr. Derek Wyatt: First, I congratulate everyone on what they are doing on the issue. I am nervous about the prospect of coming back here in 2010, if I am re-elected, and having the same conversation because we have not moved the poorest countries forward. I wonder whether my right hon. Friend is confident that the World Bank and all the other agencies are really so bothered about substantial poverty. If we do not get rid of the poverty, what will we do as a nation?

Clare Short: I agree that if we come back in 2010 and we have made no progress on the fact that one in four of our fellow human beings live in abject poverty, the world will be in considerable trouble. The population will be growing, the environment will be more degraded and we will have more war and more refugees. There is untreatable tuberculosis in Russia and forms of malaria are emerging for which we have no drugs. It would be a moral disaster as well as being very dangerous for the next generation that is growing up.
I am confident that the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund are increasingly focusing on assistance to programmes that will help to reduce poverty, but that cannot be done unless the Governments of developing countries want that. In the next phase of the movement in civil society, we need the movements in the industrialised countries to link up with people in the developing world so that they can hold their Governments more firmly to account. We need good policy not only


from donors and international institutions, but from Governments in developing countries, who often serve their elite and not their poor.

Dr. Jenny Tonge: I congratulate the Government on their debt relief initiative in the run-up to the summit this weekend, and especially on their plan to donate £100 million to the millennium fund to replace the HIPC fund. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the Government are not giving with one hand and taking away with the other and that the money will come out of Treasury reserves and not her Department's development budget? Will she also clarify whether the £50 million of aid to Kosovo will come from the Treasury or from her Department?

Clare Short: Hon. Members have no idea how grateful I am to the hon. Lady for the interest that she has taken in this subject. On the £100 million that we announced, a great deal of the contributions go well beyond the period of the current comprehensive spending review, as countries qualify for debt relief year on year, so I had to reach an understanding with the Treasury that went beyond my current budget. The probably quite small commitments under current plans would come from my Department's budget, but beyond that I have an agreement in writing from the Treasury that we will both contribute. That has to be part of the next comprehensive spending review settlement.
Of the extra £50 million for Kosovo, the first £10 million came partly from my contingency reserve and partly from money committed to the region; the second £10 million and a further £20 million came from the Treasury central reserve; and we have now agreed, because the commitment will go considerably beyond the further £50 million so far declared, that our contingency reserve, which, from memory, is about £36 million, will be put in the pot and we can then go to the central reserve, as has already happened with the extra £50 million, if there are unpredictable emergencies elsewhere in the world. That is a pretty good deal and I am pleased to have reached it.

Mr. Andrew Reed: I join the thousands of people throughout the country who would like to congratulate the Government on their actions and the lead that they have taken on aid, and in particular on the civil action mentioned by my right hon. Friend, which has convinced other nations, such as Germany and the United States, to get on board.
Unfortunately, the HIPC initiative falls far short of an ideal solution. Will my right hon. Friend and the Prime Minister push for changes in the Paris Club agreement to allow some greater flexibility and ensure that speedier and deeper debt reduction can be achieved by 2000, in line with the Mauritius mandate proposed by the Government early in 1997?

Clare Short: Yes, indeed. There is no doubt that we will get an improvement in the current HIPC initiative. There has been a big movement, especially with the change of Government in Germany. Japan has agreed to the sale of IMF gold and to do something about its own aid debt, and France has made a similar move. Those are big advances but we do not yet have an ideal solution.
My right hon. Friend the Chancellor pushed very hard at the Finance Ministers meeting, and my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister will press for even more at the leaders' meeting in Cologne this weekend. The final stage of the improvement of the HIPC initiative is the annual meetings of the bank and the fund. We need a more generous formula and more money on the table. The pressure will have to be kept up on everyone to ensure that we have a generous enough package.

Mr. Gary Streeter: I add my congratulations to the Jubilee 2000 campaigners who have done a terrific job in raising the profile of this issue throughout the country this year. I also congratulate the Government on building on the solid foundation laid by the Conservative Government in the past five years on the issue of debt relief. We are delighted by that.
Is the Secretary of State aware that, when the Prime Minister walks into the summit in Cologne at the weekend to tackle debt relief, he will carry with him the hopes and prayers of thousands of British people who care passionately about the issue? Does she agree that the key thing about debt relief is to free up funds for health care and education in the countries in question, because they are the real exit routes from poverty that we want more and more people to enjoy?

Clare Short: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his generosity—it is slightly unusual and therefore all the more welcome. There is no doubt that the previous Conservative Government took a strong position on debt relief, but most countries say that they always argued for good formulas but never put any money on the table. We argue for good formulas and put money on the table, so that is an improvement. I agree that the Prime Minister will be pressing hard at Cologne and that the worldwide movement that has been encouraged by the British movement, which includes our Churches and faiths, is impressive and powerful. It should not be disappointed.
I also agree that the key issue is debt relief that helps the poor. Therefore, how it is done is important. Having to wait years and then having a big stock of debt relief creates an incentive for a big new contract. A flow of debt relief that will ease Government budgets and, therefore, encourage spending on basic health care and education is what we really want, and we are arguing for that kind of change. I am pleased that there is cross-party agreement on that.

Oral Answers to Questions — Balkan Reconstruction

Mr. Tom Brake: What assessment she has made of the long-term reconstruction needs of (a) Albania, (b) Montenegro and (c) Macedonia. [85974]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): We are working closely with the international community to determine the development needs of the Balkan region. The major costs of reconstruction will be met by the EU and the international financial institutions.

Mr. Brake: I thank the Secretary of State for her response. How much of the £50 million of humanitarian aid announced on Monday will be spent on health


facilities? Does she believe that the Albanian Government are playing a supportive role in encouraging refugees who are with host families to remain in Albania until the situation in Kosovo is stabilised, and how much aid will those host families receive?

Clare Short: I am afraid that I cannot say precisely how much of the extra £50 million that we have just announced to help the refugees to return to Kosovo will be spent on health. We are dealing with a fairly chaotic situation. Currently, we are funding convoys which are taking in food and emergency medical supplies and blankets—which is a little odd because it is hot, but people have been sleeping in the open and do not have proper beds, and so on. Quite a lot of basic medical care is being supplied, so we are considering whether we can help to restore the hospitals. Sadly, dreadfully, I gather two accidents have already been caused by mines, and there will be many others, so decent hospital facilities will be required and we expect to make that a priority. I shall keep the House informed on the situation and the decisions that we make.
It is not for us to tell Kosovan refugees when to go home; it is our job to give them as much accurate information as possible so that they can make their own decisions. Therefore, the Albanian Government should not tell them when to go. It is important that the frail and vulnerable be looked after until the fitter and younger have returned and made their homes ready. They can then send for the women, children and the elderly. The process of return will take some months. If it is like Bosnia, the young and fit will go first, repair the roof and get the homes ready, and then send for the others. Therefore, the refugees will be in Albania and Macedonia for quite some time.

Mr. Tony Benn: What funds has my right hon. Friend earmarked for Serb families who are now becoming refugees for fear of the KLA, who have not been disarmed and who said this morning that they had no intention of giving up their weapons until the Russians submitted themselves to the American command in Kosovo?

Clare Short: First, the agreement that has been reached internationally, the agreement that has been negotiated with the KLA, and the assurances given by General Jackson, all say very clearly to the Serbs of Kosovo that they are welcome to stay, that they have the absolute right to stay, and that every effort will be made to protect them. I want to make it clear that they are not being terrorised out of the country as the Kosovar Albanians were. We have also made it clear that provision will be made if there is any humanitarian need or disaster in Serbia. However, there will be no assistance to Serbia for reconstruction as long as Milosevic and his regime remain.

Mr. Bowen Wells: Is not it true that much of the money given by the Secretary of State for the relief of refugees in Kosovo will have to be channelled through the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees? Is the Secretary of State satisfied that the UNHCR is properly organised to handle that? Is she aware that the Select Committee on International Development wrote Mrs. Ogata a letter

nearly three weeks ago—to which she has not even replied—asking her to come and give evidence and tell us how she is organising the UNHCR to give the assistance that the refugees desperately need?

Clare Short: I am very well aware of the Select Committee's report, and I respect it greatly. I have said before to the hon. Gentleman that some things in this crisis have not been well organised, but our priority is to keep the systems with which we have to work operating. When the crisis is over, we will have to try to correct the deficiencies that have emerged during the crisis.
We have published a full list, which is available from the Library, of exactly how all the money that we have made available has been spent. Some of it has gone through the UNHCR, but a lot has gone through other agencies. We are using the most effective agencies, whichever they may be, but much of our support to the UNHCR has been in kind. We were able to book aeroplanes and move stuff around faster than the agency, so we booked and paid for that instead of handing over resources. Therefore, it has been more efficient to make a lot of our contributions in kind, not in cash.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Massive financial problems face the international community in dealing with the refugee crisis. Is consideration being given to the way in which funds can be raised on an international basis? If that is not possible now, will it be possible when similar problems arise in the future? One possibility is to tax international currency speculators by means of the so-called Tobin tax. Could not such an initiative, which has already been taken in relation to international debt, have a great impact in the future?

Clare Short: I share my hon. Friend's view that the Tobin tax suggestion is interesting, but it could not be implemented until all the world agreed to it. That might take a bit longer than securing enough funding for the reconstruction of the Balkans. A campaign of ideas would have to be put in hand before we could get anywhere near to achieving what I agree is an interesting possibility.
The reconstruction of the Balkans region will incur costs. Many of the surrounding countries suffered some disruption during the war but were not damaged. Funding was made available to cover their transition from communism. Its sources included the World Bank and the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development, and the European Union also set aside funds for that purpose—so funds exist that are ready to be spent. However, additional funding has to be found for Kosovo and we have to make sure that it is not at the expense of other very poor countries.

Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I welcome the £50 million that the Secretary of State has announced, and I agree that long-term reconstruction is important for the peace, stability and prosperity of the whole region. How will she ensure that goods and materials are sourced locally, rather than more expensively elsewhere? That would help to rebuild the economies of the region's countries. What methods will she use to ensure that the dispersal of funds is closely


monitored? I am sure that she appreciates that large infrastructure projects always carry the possibility of fraud.

Clare Short: The £50 million will be spent on humanitarian and emergency help to return people to their homes and on assisting with the reconstruction of bridges and infrastructure that require immediate attention. We will disburse that money using our tight systems for ensuring that it is well spent. Matters are difficult in a disruptive region, but we are trying to do as much as possible.
The much larger spending on reconstruction that will occur across the Balkans will not, of course, take place under our management. The European Commission will lead it and there will be a great deal of welcome analytical input from the World Bank. I agree with the hon. Lady that local sourcing should be encouraged, but we will not have complete control over that. We are doing everything in our power to improve European Commission systems as we all know that there has been much waste and that there is much room for improvement.

Oral Answers to Questions — East Timor

Mr. David Rendel: If she will make a statement about the humanitarian situation and the provision of aid in East Timor. [85975]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): There is an increasing number of internally displaced people in East Timor as a result of the deteriorating security situation in the lead-up to the consultation on autonomy due on 8 August. We have contributed $1 million towards the costs of running the consultation. We are supporting a programme to strengthen the capacity of civil society organisations in East Timor, and we provided £300,000 to last year's Red Cross emergency appeal. We are continuing to monitor the humanitarian situation.

Mr. Rendel: Is the Minister aware of reports that more than 100 people have been killed in East Timor since April by militia trained by the Indonesian police? Given the recent changes in the security sector, what contribution is his Department making to the international police force in East Timor? Will he support an increase in UN security personnel in East Timor in order to guarantee proper arrangements for the registration of voters and for the independence poll?

Mr. Foulkes: I assure the hon. Gentleman that the Government are concerned about the situation. Security is of course the responsibility of the Government of Indonesia, but following the killing of some pro-autonomy workers by factions in Indonesia, the Prime Minister wrote to President Habibie in April expressing our concern and urging that the armed forces should provide security for everyone. The presence of the UN mission is helping the security situation. Some 280 civil police will take part, seven of them from the United Kingdom. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming the fact that the head of the mission is Ian Martin, a well respected former head of Amnesty International in the UK.

Oral Answers to Questions — EU Aid Expenditure

Mr. William Cash: If she will make a statement on her Department's plans to reform the European Union's aid expenditure. [85976]

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. George Foulkes): In December 1998, we published our 18-point strategy to improve European Union development spending. This makes clear our concern that aid spending is skewed against the poorest countries and often of poor quality. We are pursuing implementation of this strategy very vigorously with the Commission and with member states, pressing particularly for more development assistance for poorer countries. The Secretary of State agreed a joint declaration on improving the EU's contribution to international development with our French and German opposite numbers in February. The Development Council approved conclusions on 21 May endorsing many of our specific recommendations. I should say—especially to this particular hon. Member—that the Government are pleased that our proposals for a single Commissioner, a single programme and a single budget for development have been adopted by President Prodi.

Mr. Cash: Will the Minister congratulate the Conservative party on its victory in the European elections? Now, there will be greater scrutiny over fraud and corruption in the programmes referred to in my question. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that while we would welcome any improvement, the way in which to achieve it is to seek real accountability so that real questions can receive real answers?

Mr. Foulkes: If I did as the hon. Gentleman asks, I might not answer many more questions from the Dispatch Box. [HON. MEMBERS: "You don't answer them."] No, indeed. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that we are concerned about fraud. The report of the Committee of Independent Experts highlighted a lack of accountability and responsibility, which has resulted in a radical shake-up of the Commission.
If the hon. Gentleman is satisfied with and draws comfort from some 30 per cent. of the votes, on a turnout of 25 per cent., he is clutching at straws.

Mr. Robin Corbett: All hon. Members who are interested in international development will welcome the proposal for a single European Commissioner to focus the Commission's attention on this important area. How soon is that proposal likely to be implemented?

Mr. Foulkes: I understand that it will be implemented as soon as the new Commission is appointed next month. We are not satisfied only with a single Commissioner; we are now pressing for more money to go to the poorest countries. We have a target of 70 per cent., because at the moment only 50 per cent. of development money goes to the poorest countries. We shall press also for greater efficiency in delivering the budget. We are only just starting the shake-up that is needed in EU development spending.

Oral Answers to Questions — Kosovar Refugees

Mr. Dominic Grieve: What actions she is taking to ensure that the humanitarian assistance to Kosovar refugees is of the highest standards; and if she will make a statement. [85877]

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What estimate she has made of expenditure to date on aid and supplies to assist the Kosovar refugees. [85979]

Mr. Bill Rammell: If she will make a statement on the progress of plans to support Kosovar refugees in the region around Kosovo. [85981]

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is the internationally designated lead agency responsible for co-ordinating provision for the refugees from Kosovo and for their return to Kosovo. We have worked since the beginning of the crisis to try to support and improve its efforts. We have provided £40 million of assistance to date, and on Monday we announced a further £50 million to support the process of return to Kosovo. Details of our spending, which has been channelled through the most effective agencies, are available in the Library. Provision is being made to cater for winter conditions from October onwards.

Mr. Grieve: Will the Minister expand a little on the answer that she gave to an earlier question on the European Union's role in channelling funds? In what areas is she concerned about whether that is an efficient method of ensuring that the aid is provided?

Clare Short: The hon. Gentleman will know that the European Union's efficiency in that area is very poor, so we have published a plan to try to achieve improvements and the Select Committee on International Development has published a very good report. As my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary just said, our criticism is being accepted and we will achieve a major reorganisation. That will not guarantee greatly improved efficiency, but it represents an opportunity to achieve it.
The European Community Humanitarian Office—ECHO—has worked hard, under Emma Bonino, to make improvements, and has worked well to disburse funds during the Kosovo crisis. The EU will be a lead spender in the reconstruction of the Balkans, and we shall have to work hard to make sure that the money is well spent. The link with the World Bank should improve matters.

Mr. Griffiths: We know how much work my right hon. Friend's Department has done to help the refugees during the crisis. Will she ensure that having worked round the clock, her staff will continue to get the resources that they need until the refugees have gone home?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his praise. I have enormously dedicated staff in my Department, particularly in the conflict and humanitarian affairs department where staff deal with crises. They are under strict instructions to take some leave and not to work all hours; otherwise, they will be unable to sustain their work for as long as they are needed to help with

the reconstruction of Kosovo. As my hon. Friend said, more resources will be needed. Getting people home will be much harder than helping them to leave Kosovo. It will be a much more welcome task, but it will take time and a lot of resources. As my hon. Friend knows, we have just committed an extra £50 million to that task, but more will probably be needed.

Mr. Rammell: I welcome the additional resources that have just been announced. They demonstrate that not only were we justified in taking military action, but we are now prepared to back up that action with much needed money to support the refugees. What will be the immediate priorities on the ground for the spending of that additional money? How quickly can we begin to spend it? How will the programme be managed on the ground by the Department?

Clare Short: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. This has been a new kind of conflict in which humanitarian disaster and military action have been absolutely entangled, rather than separate, so we have been disbursing resources from the beginning. There has been repression of people in Kosovo and refugees. Our priorities are demining and mine education. There will be terrible accidents. Families who have been driven out are returning and their children are being blown up or losing limbs. We are doing all that we can to remove mines, to survey mines and to educate refugees about the problems of mines. Beyond that, they need food, medical supplies and equipment to enable them to rebuild their houses. They will then need longer-term help with reconstruction.

Mr. Gary Streeter: The Secretary of State will be aware of the UNHCR plan to help the refugees to go home, which appears to anticipate refugees beginning to return after three weeks of NATO going into Kosovo, with the main return following three or four months of liberation. Although I understand the need for caution and safety, is that not hopelessly out of touch with reality? Many people are already going home and, understandably, many more will wish to go home following the withdrawal of the Serb forces this weekend. Is there anything that the right hon. Lady can do to encourage the UNHCR to be more realistic and flexible, and to come up with a better plan?

Clare Short: I agree completely—this must be an historic first—with every word that the hon. Gentleman has just said. The UNHCR has appealed to refugees not to return home for a month, but people who can see their villages across the border and who get word that things are now safe are choosing when to go home. We owe full information to the refugees so that they may make their own decisions. We expect waves of movement, as we saw in Bosnia. The fit and young are first to find out what their home is like and to start to repair it. When they have put things in place, they send for children and the elderly. People are already moving and making their own decisions, but we must educate them, especially the children, about mines because there will be terrible accidents.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 16 June.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Tony Blair): This morning, I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. I also sent a message to Nelson Mandela, who steps down as South African President today. In addition to my duties in the House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Mr. Griffiths: An hour ago, I spoke to Besian Krasniqi—a Kosovar refugee who is in Germany with his family—whom I met on 9 April in a Macedonian camp. He praises Britain's resolution and endurance, which gave him and every other refugee hope. He knows that he will not be going home next week or next month, but will the Prime Minister ensure that every refugee is enabled to go home as quickly and as safely as possible, irrespective of ethnic background?

The Prime Minister: I first pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work as chairman of the Scottish Charities Kosovo Appeal and his steadfast support of the cause of the refugees over the past few months. We are well on course for getting the refugees back. More than 26,000 Serb troops have already left; only 15,000 remain in Kosovo. There are 14,500 NATO troops now in Kosovo, including more than 6,000 British troops. However, the full horrors of what has happened to the refugees are only just coming to light. Our troops have been speaking just in the past few hours of what they have seen: attempted rapes, assassinations, shootings and, of course, the uncovering of mass graves. Thank goodness we intervened in Kosovo, thank goodness for the courage and professionalism of our troops and thank goodness for the support of the British people.

Mr. William Hague: Now that we have all had the experience of a nationwide election under proportional representation, is the Prime Minister going to stick to his manifesto commitment to hold a referendum on changing the voting system for Westminster in this Parliament?

The Prime Minister: I would have thought that, after the campaign, the right hon. Gentleman would have been rather more keen on such a system than I am. Our position on the Jenkins commission has not changed, and will not change. We have already explained our position on the referendum.

Mr. Hague: Perhaps the position is so simple that the Prime Minister can explain it again. Why cannot he give a straight answer to a question about honouring a manifesto commitment? We have just had an election under a voting

system that he insisted would not allow people to choose an individual candidate, which people did not like. He justified that system last year by saying:
Under the system that we are proposing, we will give away seats … to the Tories—it is an act of generosity on our part."— [Official Report, 18 November 1998; Vol. 319, c. 931.]
What we did not know is that he would put the Leader of the House in charge and she would be an expert at giving away seats. If he still thinks that proportional representation is a good idea, why does he not stick to his manifesto and give people the chance to reject further destruction of this country's tried and tested voting systems?

The Prime Minister: For the reason that we gave at the time, which is that the new system proposed by the Jenkins commission could not be introduced in time for the next general election.

Mr. Hague: Is it not fast becoming a hallmark of this Prime Minister that he is afraid to argue the case for the few things that he actually believes in? Almost every Member of the House says where they stand on this issue—the Foreign Secretary is in favour of it, the Home Secretary is against it—except him. Why does not he have the courage either to argue the case for it or to abandon the whole crazy idea?

The Prime Minister: For the reasons that I have given on many occasions. If we are talking about the European elections, we have set out our position on Europe, and on the single currency, very clearly, and I believe it to be the right position for the country.

Mr. Hague: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot remember the reasons for his policy, how can he expect everybody else to remember? But if last week's elections have told him nothing about proportional representation, have they made any difference to his plans for a referendum on joining the euro?

The Prime Minister: No, they have not, because I believe that our position on the euro, which is that the test is the national economic interest—is it good for British jobs, British industry, British investment?—is the right position, and that that is the right test. I believe that the right hon. Gentleman's policy, which is to rule it out for 10 years, arbitrarily, is the wrong policy. As I said to him last week, he may well get a short-term gain, but it will be at the expense of the long-term interests of the country.
I thought that one of the most significant moments yesterday was when the previous hon. Member for Stafford (Mr. Cash), who was one of the people who had the Whip withdrawn from him under the last Conservative Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "No. Withdraw."] Well, let us say that he certainly was not hugely in favour of the last Government's European policy. I apologise if I mistook his protestations of loyalty to the last Prime Minister. That Member now says that he is in the main stream of Conservative policy.
The truth is that the Leader of the Opposition has sold the pass to the Euro-sceptics; they are now in charge of his party and his policy. Whatever the short-term gain, it is a long-term disaster for him and for the country.

Mr. Hague: Instead of saying that elections make no difference to him, should not the Prime Minister be


listening to the people of this country? They do not want their Government to be committed in principle to abolishing their currency. Should not he, on that issue as on proportional representation, either have the courage to make the case for the euro or drop his commitment to abolishing our currency?

The Prime Minister: First, if the right hon. Gentleman asks about listening to the British people, of course we should listen to the British people. Indeed, it is unfortunate that over 75 per cent. did not vote in these elections. However, on the single currency, we have a position that is very sensible, surely—to say that the test is the national economic interest, and that what is wrong is to rule the single currency out in the next Parliament, even if it should be in the interests of British jobs, British industry and British investment to join.
The right hon. Gentleman has made his position—[Interruption.] I am told by people shouting that his position is now to rule it out for ever. I had thought that his position was to rule it out for 10 years. What a great point of principle that is. For 10 years it is entirely wrong, but in year 11 it becomes right. That is an absurd position. The true principled position for his party actually is to rule it out—for ever, which is what a majority of his party now want—yes. But I believe that, in the British national interest, we should join if it is in the interests of British jobs, British industry and British investment, and that is the right position for the country.

Mr. Hague: If he was listening to the British people, the right hon. Gentleman would discover that they do not want the Government to be committed to abolishing the pound. They want to be in Europe, not run by Europe. Has it not become evident in recent weeks that, on these vital issues, the Prime Minister is too scared to make his case and too arrogant to listen?

The Prime Minister: No, for the reasons that I have given. When more than 50 per cent. of our trade is with Europe and millions of British jobs depend on Europe, to leave Europe, as a large part of the right hon. Gentleman's party wants to do, or to go so far to the margins of influence that we have no strength or power in Europe, would be a mistake. He may gain some short-term benefit, but in the long term it would be a mistake for Britain. I will not follow him down that path.
Look at this country's position in Europe when we came into office. It had no influence, no strength and no power at all in Europe. This Government have had the beef ban lifted and the rebate preserved. We have ended up with the best deal on structural funds that the country has ever had. The true question is: in or out of Europe? The right hon. Gentleman and his party are increasingly taking Britain out of it.

Ms Helen Southworth: Will my right hon. Friend commend Francis Wheeler, a former constituent of mine and a National Bus Company pensioner, who took the previous Tory Government before the ombudsman for pickpocketing £122 million from his company pension fund? Does my right hon. Friend agree that now, under this Government, justice is being done?

The Prime Minister: Of course it is. The 50,000 National Bus Company pensioners will receive a

massive £355 million boost to their pensions. We said that we were determined to settle the issue, and we have done so. We will do the just thing by those pensioners, who were let down year after year by the previous Conservative Government.

Mr. A. J. Beith: As the Prime Minister pointed out— [Interruption.] We Deputy Leaders should stick together. The Tories have got rid of one already this week. It is a bit like the lilies of the field—he toils not, neither does he spin any more.
Does the Prime Minister recognise that with three quarters of the electorate not voting last Thursday, when it comes to a real test in a referendum about a single currency, those in all three parties who recognise how important that is for Britain must give a lead and make it clear that, by staying permanently out of the currency, we give ourselves a lethal cocktail of a high pound, high interest rates, high job losses and a loss of influence in the world?

The Prime Minister: For a moment I thought that that was a late leadership bid.
The sensible position is to keep the option open and to say, as we have said, that the referendum will decide the issue finally. However, we have made it clear why we believe that it is right for Britain to be part of a successful single currency, provided our economic conditions are met. That is the sensible position. The Conservative position, which is to rule out joining the single currency for 10 years or for ever, is not sensible. If it is correct that Conservative MEPs will not join the Conservative party group in the European Parliament—[Interruption.] It would be a disaster for the country if they did not do that.

Mr. Beith: As there is something of the holding answer about that reply, I promise the Prime Minister that we will return to it.
Will he give further thought to today's business—the Immigration and Asylum Bill? If that Bill will reduce the backlog and quickly weed out applications that are not genuine, why on earth do we need to use poverty and a voucher system as a means of deterring genuine refugees who are fleeing from torture and oppression?

The Prime Minister: We are not consigning asylum seekers to poverty. Indeed, a voucher system already exists. However, it is important that we clean up the system. Many bogus claims are being made. It is not right that we carry on with the present system. As the right hon. Gentleman knows, we inherited a mess, with a backlog of tens of thousands of claims. The new system will be fairer and faster and will deter the bogus asylum seeker.

Mr. Christopher Leslie: What would be the effect on the British economy if Bank of England independence were scrapped, interest rates were returned to the levels under the previous Administration, and the £40 billion for schools and hospitals were also scrapped? Would not those Tory policies represent a significant threat to the well-being of everyone in the country if that lot were ever re-elected?

The Prime Minister: The wisdom of our economic policies has been criticised at every stage by the


Conservative party, which wants to reverse Bank of England independence, reverse the new deal and reverse the national minimum wage. It also opposes the extra spending on schools and hospitals. As today's unemployment figures show, this Government have delivered higher employment. We have halved youth unemployment, we have the lowest interest rates, we have inflation under control and we have got the public finances sorted out. That is a new Labour Government in action.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Does the Prime Minister agree that many of the advantages of decentralising power to Scotland and Wales should now be available to the regions and counties of England, and that we should then move towards a federal system of government? Is not that the only answer to the West Lothian question and to fears about the possible break-up of the United Kingdom?

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I cannot agree. We have made it clear that it is important that there is greater decentralisation in the regions. The reason why we have established in the north-east the Northern development agency is precisely to decentralise Government services. However, we must proceed with care and in accordance with the wishes of local people.

Mr. Steve McCabe: May I welcome the news that the Government are seeking United Nations support for an initiative to ease sanctions on Iraq and relieve the suffering of innocent people, especially the problems of malnutrition and infant mortality? Can the Prime Minister give any further details on that initiative and say when he hopes to see real progress?

The Prime Minister: I hope that we can make progress soon, because it is important that we distinguish carefully between the sanctions that have been placed on Iraq to ensure that it cannot develop weapons of mass destruction, for example, and the humanitarian aid that we are giving to the Iraqi people. As I have emphasised here before, Saddam Hussein has the ability to help the Iraqi people by selling as much oil as he wants to buy food and medicine for them. He is choosing not to do so. We shall support any moves that allow more help to get through to the Iraqi people. We have no wish to increase their suffering. The ultimate cause of their suffering, however, is Saddam Hussein.

Mr. Andrew Tyrie: Why does not the Prime Minister simply tell the House what the overwhelming majority of hon. Members and the country wants to hear, which is that he no longer supports proportional representation as a means of electing people to this House?

The Prime Minister: For the reason that I have just given: because I believe that the Jenkins commission deserves serious consideration, and we should give it. I do not see why the Tory party is so against a debate on it.

Mr. Mohammad Sarwar: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the rising tensions between

India and Pakistan, which could lead to a full-scale war and possibly a nuclear confrontation? What steps are the Government taking to diffuse the situation and to resolve the dispute over Kashmir, which is the root cause of the deteriorating relations between the two countries?

The Prime Minister: We are urging both India and Pakistan to calm the situation down and resolve their differences. We know that the source of those differences is Kashmir, but it is important that they work out a solution in the interests of everybody. That is what we are doing, and we are also using what influence we have in international institutions like the UN to put pressure on them to do so.

Mr. William Ross: Given that the IRA is clearly engaged in a programme of street confrontation, intimidation and murder, such as that of Mr. Downey last weekend, has it not clearly placed itself outside the terms of the agreement? Given, therefore, that the people of Northern Ireland always expected the Prime Minister to honour the commitment that he gave them on weapons last year, may I welcome his statement yesterday that we will now have to find another way forward?

The Prime Minister: We shall have to find another way forward only if the agreement fails, and I hope that it does not fail because I believe it to be the best chance that Northern Ireland has. There are still acts of violence, although I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman did not mention that there are loyalist acts of violence as well. Those acts of violence are totally unacceptable.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, we have a statutory procedure for assessing what happens in the event that violence takes place, but I still urge him and others to give their help and support to make the agreement work. It has resolved the big constitutional issues of the day and, in particular, it has given the Unionists what they have been arguing for for more than 70 years since partition: the acceptance of the principle of consent, north and south.
I believe, even at this late hour, that, when people go back to the agreement, analyse its terms and really understand what it gives to the people of Northern Ireland—a good constitutional settlement for the future—they will support it.

Mr. Barry Sheerman: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, although there has been excellent co-operation between this country and Europe and the United States in the action in Kosovo, we seem to be slipping dangerously towards an international trade war that could impoverish all the advanced nations—indeed all the nations of the world? Will he take urgent steps, not only to discuss the trade situation between the US and Europe, but to urge a radical look at the World Trade Organisation?

The Prime Minister: I agree. The recent difficulties between the European Union and the United States are a serious problem and we have to work hard to ensure that it is resolved. Our position as a country has always been against protectionism and in favour of reform, in the WTO and elsewhere. Europe of course has to understand that,


as a result of the WTO negotiations, we will have substantially to reform the way that parts of the EU work, so we are as well to begin on that now.

Mr. David Rendel: As the Prime Minister knows, the Government have accepted in the High Court that the previous Conservative Government acted illegally when they failed to implement properly European directive 77/187 on employment protection. What efforts are he and his Government making to introduce a compensation package for the 2,000 people who have taken out writs against the Government and the several others—including my constituent, Mr. David Atkins—with similar cases? When will that compensation package be finalised and when will the people concerned get their money?

The Prime Minister: This matter affects thousands of workers up and down the country and we are consulting widely with companies, unions and others on the revisions that have to be made to the Transfer of Undertakings (Protection of Employment) Regulations 1981. Those will be implemented in July 2001 and will ensure proper protection for companies and employees. I will of course ask my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to respond to the particular points that the hon. Gentleman has made when he writes to him later today.

Jacqui Smith: On the day on which Thabo Mbeki takes over the presidency of South Africa, will my right hon. Friend outline what our Government can do to work with the new South African Government to ensure continued economic and social development in that country? Will he join Labour Members in wishing Nelson Mandela a long and healthy retirement? Does not he think that it is about time that Opposition Members, who called for Nelson Mandela's prolonged imprisonment and execution, made a public apology?

The Prime Minister: One reason why I sent the letter of congratulation to Nelson Mandela today is that he has been an inspiration to the whole world, for his principles and his conviction during the long years of apartheid. We wish Thabo Mbeki well; I believe that he will do an excellent job for South Africa. As for our own help to South Africa, we have a substantial bilateral aid programme. In particular, we have begun to do an awful lot of work with the South African Government and the South African people in relation to AIDS, which is a huge problem for South Africa. I believe that, with the right mix of policies and the right help from the world community, South Africa has a bright future.

Sir Peter Tapsell: What does the Prime Minister think are the implications of the recent application by the European central bank to the Council of Ministers for permission to double its reserves of gold and currencies?

The Prime Minister: I do not believe that there are any implications in relation to the strength of the euro. The European central bank, like other central banks, is perfectly entitled to make whatever dispositions it wants. Indeed, as the hon. Gentleman knows, the Bank of England has given us advice about gold and gold sales.

All central banks will have a mixture of currency portfolios. That is sensible, and it is only the Conservative party that sees some great conspiracy behind it.

Laura Moffatt: Will my right hon. Friend join me in congratulating the staff and the support services at Tinsley detention centre in my constituency, who work with ministers of all faiths to create a humane atmosphere in difficult and painful circumstances? Will he assure me that, as good as those facilities are, the stay of detainees will be as short as possible and detainees will be dealt with as quickly as possible to ensure that they go through the system, and that they are not held so that they feel that no one cares?

The Prime Minister: I know of my hon. Friend's long-standing interest in Tinsley house and the wider issue of asylum. Tinsley house is generally acknowledged for the excellence of the quality of its care and of the relationship between staff and detainees. The asylum arrangements that we inherited were a complete and total shambles, with a backlog of many years: tens of thousands of people are waiting for their cases to be dealt with. Our aim is, by April 2000, to deliver initial decisions on new asylum applications from families with children in an average of two months. I am satisfied that the changes we have recently made will allow that to happen.

Mr. Dominic Grieve: The Prime Minister will be aware that he and his Northern Ireland Ministers have repeatedly stated that Sinn Fein and the IRA are one organisation. In those circumstances, will he explain to the House what is meant by the suggestion that has been reported in the press that Sinn Fein might obtain its seats on the Executive by dissociating itself from its own action—with their other hat on as members of the IRA—of not decommissioning, and by expressing some regret? What is the Government's strategy on that issue?

The Prime Minister: I do not know what press reports the hon. Gentleman refers to, but they are wrong. There is no question of that happening. Indeed, my speech yesterday made it very clear that decommissioning is part of the agreement. What I actually said was that, since it is an obligation under the agreement for people to use their best faith to ensure decommissioning, and as nobody will believe that groups associated with paramilitary groups, if they are acting in good faith, cannot achieve decommissioning, people will expect decommissioning to happen. That is the position that we have set out, and I urge the hon. Gentleman and other Conservative Members like him to support us. We have a critical time in Northern Ireland over the next two weeks, and whatever bits of nonsense there are in parts of the press that are, frankly, hostile to this agreement, it is the only chance of a peaceful future that Northern Ireland will get.

Mr. Tony Benn: On Europe, quite apart from what the Conservative party does—which is a matter for that party—is the Prime Minister aware that millions of people in this country are passionately in favour of European co-operation and have no desire to separate themselves from the continent, but believe that the democratic control of our own economy is a national interest? They are, therefore, of the view that that applies


not only to Britain, but to Germany, France and everywhere else. Would my right hon. Friend take this argument seriously, because for democrats to be insulted as if they hated Europe and to be described as Euro-sceptics is offensive and wholly inaccurate?

The Prime Minister: That is an interesting new alliance. I take my right hon. Friend's point seriously. The position that he has adopted is entirely principled: it is opposition to a single currency, full stop, for good, for ever. That is not the Conservative party's position: its position is to be principled for 10 years and to be unprincipled thereafter. My view is that, in the modern world as we move closer together, there will be a pooling of national sovereignty. However, I do not suggest that we join the single currency unless I believe that it is in Britain's interest—in the interests of our jobs, our industry and our investment. For me, that national economic interest is the test. That is a principled position; the other principled position is that of my right hon. Friend, which is to say never. Those are the two clear positions. What is nonsense, is what we have heard from the Conservative party.

Mr. John Greenway: Is the Prime Minister aware that, following reports of cross-contamination of animal feeds in France leading to further cases of BSE, the French Government are reported to be seeking a Europe-wide ban on the use of meat and bonemeal in animal rations? When will his Government give British consumers and farmers the protection and support that they deserve, by seeking—[Interruption.]

The Prime Minister: I am afraid that I did not hear the last sentence. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Let us be quite clear. I call the hon. Member for Ryedale (Mr. Greenway) to repeat the last sentence of his question.

Mr. Greenway: I asked the Prime Minister when he and this Government would give British consumers and farmers the protection and support that they need by seeking what he knows the British agriculture industry has been requesting for two years: a ban on the use of meat and bonemeal throughout Europe, and a ban on imports of meat and poultry produced by that method in other parts of the European Union.

The Prime Minister: First, let me say that the industry has been seeking such a ban for much longer than two years. This has been going on for a very long time.

Of course we are trying to do something about it, but, as the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, we have been having our own difficulties as a result of BSE. Once we sort the problem out—which we are: as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Standing Veterinary Committee is meeting today to discuss the matter—we can ensure that we deal with the other issues as well. The course that he is urging on us is one of complete—well, I will not accuse him of hypocrisy, because that would be unparliamentary; but it does not lie in the mouths of Conservative Members to attack us over BSE.

Mr. Chris Mullin: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. [Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: I ask hon. Members to leave the Chamber quietly. This is an important point of order, which I want to hear.

Mr. Mullin: Thank you, Madam Speaker. As you know, I tabled question 11 to the Secretary of State for International Development. I arrived in the Chamber in good time to ask my question, only to discover that it had been grouped with question 1. I had not been informed of that. I subsequently checked to find out whether a letter had been put on the board, and it had not, although I understand that one is on its way.
May I ask you gently, Madam Speaker, to point out to Departments that, when they group questions together, the onus is on them to advise Members accordingly? Putting a letter in the internal mail and hoping that it will arrive in time is not good enough.

Madam Speaker: I entirely sympathise with the hon. Gentleman, who certainly arrived in the Chamber in good time for his question. I believe that it is incumbent on Departments to deal directly with Members when they seek to link questions. The hon. Gentleman is quite right: it is insufficient for Departments to put a note on the board in the hope that Members will pick it up. They may enter the Chamber through other doors.
I hope that all Departments will note what I have said.

The Secretary of State for International Development (Clare Short): Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. I entirely accept your reprimand. I am very sorry, I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), and I shall ensure that this never happens again.

Madam Speaker: I shall ensure that the hon. Gentleman catches my eye and gets a little favour.

House of Commons Disqualification (Amendment)

Siobhain McDonagh: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to allow persons ordained and ministers of any religious denomination to be Members of the House of Commons.
The Bill would bring about a small and modest reform of Britain's electoral law. It would both modernise our constitution and reduce, albeit slightly, the power of the state. As such, it has the support of members of the three main parties, and I hope that it will enjoy that of the whole House—especially as it has no financial implications.
Why is the Bill necessary? The leading constitutional expert Professor Robert Blackburn has described this part of electoral law as
incoherent, illogical and virtually impossible for anyone except a legal expert to discover".
For an answer to the simple and reasonable question, "Can a priest stand for Parliament?", we need to examine nine separate Acts, stretching back to the 16th century. Indeed, when the Select Committee on Home Affairs examined the matter 18 months ago, even very experienced and knowledgeable members were surprised at the extent of the inconsistencies in the law as it currently stands.
I shall highlight the arbitrary nature of the present position. I must warn those people who are not aware of the position that it gets incredibly complicated. Some religious officials are disqualified, but others are not. Some priests can relinquish their ministry to become a Member of Parliament, but others are unable to do so. Only certain Christian priests are disqualified, whereas ministers of all other religious faiths, such as Judaism, Islam and Buddhism, are all eligible. All episcopally ordained priests of the Anglican Church are disqualified, but not in Wales. All Roman Catholic priests are disqualified. Non-conformist clergy are not disqualified. Indeed, several Protestant clerics have served and continue to serve with distinction in the House.
It has taken a long line of statutory anachronisms since the middle ages to achieve that absurd position. That is why the legislation for the Scottish Parliament and Welsh Assembly rightly swept aside all such disqualifications.
The Bill will not make it compulsory, or, for that matter, desirable, for priests to stand for Parliament. I am sure many hon. Members will have their own views about that. My view is that it would be difficult for a parish minister to be too publicly identified with any one party. However, it is none of my business if he or she then wishes to stand for election, and it is clearly no business of the state to decide which variety of Christian minister is eligible and which not. That decision is best left to the Churches themselves. It should be up to them whether their clergy can stand. As it happens, the Church of England may agree and the Roman Catholic Church may disagree. My Bill would afford the Churches the autonomy to come to their own decisions. It is not the business of the state to allow one clerical variety, but not another.
If anyone is thinking to themselves, not unreasonably, "If those people want to be Members of Parliament, can they not just give up the ministry and stand?", the answer is that some can, but others cannot. Anglican clergy are able to resign their orders and stand for Parliament thanks to the clergy disqualification Act of 1870, but that does not apply to Roman Catholic clergy. Even if a Catholic priest leaves the priesthood and ceases to work or function as a priest, he still cannot stand for Parliament; British law currently does not recognise the status of ex-Catholic priests. So, although civil servants and Anglican clergy can resign their post and stand for Parliament, former Catholic priests are legally disqualified for life.
Had Bruce Kent been elected in 1992, he would not have been allowed to take up his seat, even though he had left the priesthood and married some years earlier, because the law at present allows him to stand for Parliament, but not to take up his seat should he win. If people are properly selected by their party and win a valid mandate from the voters, it is simply undemocratic that our ancient law can prevent those elected members from taking their place in the House.
It is clear that we cannot continue to draw religious distinctions in eligibility for election to Parliament. We could be found in breach of the European convention on human rights if we continue to do so. I am advised that the present position is in breach of the convention, which has three separate provisions dealing with freedom of religion, prohibition of religious discrimination and free elections.
If the Government do not tidy up blatantly discriminatory measures in ancient law, doing so could take up both time and money in the courts after the Human Rights Act 1998 is implemented. If my Bill fails, the issue may prove to be the basis of the first legal action seeking a declaration of incompatibility in United Kingdom courts, brought by individuals who have suffered and continue to suffer a sense of grievance because of those measures. I very much hope that it does not come to that.
As I said, this issue of electoral law was investigated by the Select Committee on Home Affairs. In its report entitled "Electoral Law and Administration", which was published in 1998, the Committee said:
We therefore recommend that, with one exception, all restrictions on ministers of religion standing for, and serving as, Members of Parliament be removed".
The one exception was bishops in the other place.
The Select Committee recognised the clear need for reform, as the House did when we framed the legislation establishing the Parliament in Scotland and the Assembly in Wales, where no such discrimination applies. It is time that we ourselves left behind the arbitrary disqualifications from membership of this place imposed by current law.
Fundamentally, the rationale behind those antique statutes passed away a very long time ago, and those statutes have no place in the parliamentary electoral law of our multicultural society, with its community of religious faiths, as we prepare to enter the 21st century.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Siobhain McDonagh, Mr. Ben Bradshaw, Mr. Tom Clarke, Mr. Paul Goggins, Mr. Simon Hughes, Mrs. Joan Humble, Mr. Edward Leigh, Mr. Martin Linton, Mr. Robert Maclennan, Mr. Gordon Marsden, Ms Bridget Prentice and Mr. Bob Russell.

HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION (AMENDMENT)

Siobhain McDonagh accordingly presented a Bill to allow persons ordained and ministers of any religious denomination to be Members of the House of Commons: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 23 July, and to be printed [Bill 120].

Orders of the Day — Immigration and Asylum Bill

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended in the Special Standing Committee, further considered, pursuant to Order [15 June].

New Clause 2

REMOVAL OF ASYLUM CLAIMANTS UNDER STANDING ARRANGEMENTS WITH MEMBER STATES

'.—(1) A member State is to be regarded for the purposes of subsection (2) as—

(a) a place where a person's life and liberty is not threatened by reason of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion; and
(b) a place from which a person will not be sent to another country otherwise than in accordance with the Refugee Convention.

(2) Nothing in section 6 of the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 (protection of claimants from deportation etc.) prevents a person who has made a claim for asylum ("the claimant") from being removed from the United Kingdom to a member State if—

(a) the Secretary of State has certified that—

(i) the member State has accepted that, under standing arrangements, it is the responsible State in relation to the claimant's claim for asylum; and
(ii) in his opinion, the claimant is not a national or citizen of the member State to which he is to be sent;

(b) the certificate has not been set aside on an appeal under section 51; and
(c) the time for giving notice of such an appeal has expired and no appeal is pending.

(3) For the purposes of subsection (2)(c), an appeal is not to be regarded as pending if the Secretary of State has issued a certificate under section 58(2)(a) in relation to the allegation on which it is founded.

(4) "Standing arrangements" means arrangements in force as between member States for determining which state is responsible for considering applications for asylum.'.—[Mr. Straw.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Question proposed [15 June], That the clause be read a Second time.

Question again proposed.

Madam Speaker: I remind the House that with this we are discussing the following: Government new clause 3—Removal of asylum claimants in other circumstances.
Government amendments Nos. 56 and 58 to 60.
The Home Secretary has the Floor.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Jack Straw): Last night, just before midnight, I began to deal with the points made in the debate by my hon. Friends and by Opposition Members. As I had been on my feet for only about 30 seconds, it may be convenient for the House if I were to start again.
The hon. Members for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), and some of my hon. Friends, had asked why it had not been possible to table new clause 2 earlier in the Bill's passage. As the House will be aware, sometimes, with the best will in the world, policy issues cannot be settled when a Bill is published, but have to be settled later.
I should make it clear that there should have been no surprise that the Government have proposed the policy in new clause 2. First, we flagged up the issue in the White Paper, which was published at the end of July 1998. Secondly, and perhaps more pertinently, on 22 March, when I gave my oral evidence to the Special Standing Committee, I referred specifically to the matter dealt with in the new clause.
I refer the House to the Official Report of that Special Standing Committee sitting, where I was asked about operation of the Dublin convention. I said:
The convention is causing problems and raises a very substantial issue—that of the more effective transfer of asylum seekers who have come to this country and who, if they have travelled by land and sea will almost always have travelled through other EU countries".
3.45 pm
I said that I was exploring the question of return with several EU Interior Ministers. I added, and this answers another point that was raised yesterday:
I discussed that subject with Jean-Pierre Chevènement, the Minister of the Interior in 
I continued, and this goes directly to the gravamen of new clause 2:
The associated issue is whether to adopt interpretations of our obligations under the 1951 convention that are similar to those adopted by, for example, Germany and France. We are examining such interpretations with care, because it does not make a huge amount of sense to use different, and in some cases, wider, definitions than those that apply in France and Germany."—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 22 March 1999; c. 468.]
The matter that I flagged up on that occasion is wider than that which is contained within new clause 2. The new clause, by our statute, would concede to France, Germany and other member states in a similar position what we all know to be the margin of appreciation—their interpretation of the convention. To be frank, their interpretation of the convention is safe, and so too are the signatories and adherents to the 1951 convention on human rights. I hope that answer helps to deal with the points raised yesterday.

Mr. Richard Allan: For the record, the Home Secretary should be aware that, for the oral evidence-taking sittings and the written-evidence section of the Special Standing Committee, we asked all those giving evidence to stick to material that was contained within the Bill. We thought that that was sensible. It is obviously a learning exercise, and I have already told the Home Secretary that I think that the Special Standing Committee was a useful exercise. However, if we are to ask people to stick to the contents of the Bill, it is important that all matters are included within the Bill, rather than it being left to us to assume that people know about issues that have been mentioned in a White Paper.

Mr. Straw: That is a fair point. We established the Special Standing Committee because we are genuinely

committed to wider scrutiny of Bills whenever possible, and I have put on the record my belief, which the hon. Member for Hertsmere has acknowledged, that the process has worked well until now.

Mr. James Clappison: Guilty.

Mr. Straw: I acquit the hon. Gentleman of all responsibility for the mess up in the Opposition Whips' Office. He can no more be held accountable for the forces of darkness that inhabit that office than we can, and I have never laid that charge against him. He is reasonable; it is those in the shadows at the other end of the Opposition Front Bench and their inability to control some of their Back Benchers who are the cause of the chaos on the Opposition Benches. However, that is another story, and I shall not detain the House by elaborating on it.
I accept the comment made by hon. Member for Hallam about the Special Standing Committee process being a learning process. I flagged up the issues as best I could, but I accept that, when we have another Special Standing Committee, we should as far as possible give advance notice of all the issues that are being considered by the Government and that might emerge in amendments tabled at a later date.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) asked for confirmation of the purpose of the new clause. Let me make it clear that the only change introduced by the new clause is in respect of transfers to member states under the Dublin convention. I propose that, in those cases, it should no longer be a requirement that I should certify that the receiving state will comply with its obligations under the 1951 convention; instead, the clause provides that that requirement shall be regarded as having been fulfilled. As I explained yesterday, the purpose of the change is to reduce the scope for unnecessary dispute over the safety of member states' asylum procedures in Dublin convention cases. There are no changes in respect of other returns, and it will continue to be a requirement in those cases that I certify that the receiving state will comply with the 1951 convention.
My hon. Friend also asked how many appeals there had been in cases where the applicant did not have an in-country right of appeal under the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, but had instead what is known as a non-suspensive right of appeal. I understand that more than 100 such appeals have been lodged since the 1996 Act came into force. I have not had time to assemble detailed information on their outcomes. Several were withdrawn before they were heard. I am aware of two appeals in which the certificate was overturned.
My hon. Friend also asked about the enlargement of the European Union and whether the arrangements and the Dublin convention would apply to any applicant state admitted. The answer is yes. Applicant states cannot pick and choose which parts of the treaties they adhere to. It is fundamental to the process under which they accede to membership of the EU that they accede to all extant treaties and conventions, which includes the Dublin convention and any replacement of it that may come about under the Amsterdam treaty.
Applicant states must adhere not just to the texts, but to the practice. We are heavily involved in a huge amount of work, monitoring not just the economic performance


of applicant states but their performance in terms of justice and human rights. That process receives no publicity in this country, despite the best efforts of those of us who go to Brussels to sit on the Justice and Home Affairs Council. The country is aware that there are economic criteria. They are relatively easy to monitor because they relate to statistics. It is more difficult to monitor adherence to human rights, although 1 think that it is more important.
We are strongly committed to checking and analysing the state of the justice system in an applicant country and its subscription in practice to human rights. All the states concerned have signed up to the Council of Europe and the European convention on human rights, but we have to ensure that they follow it through in practice. We have had to go back to one applicant state—I shall not mention which—and tell it that its police service is not properly separated from its court service. Until it has a track record of an independent judiciary and a police service that is separated from the executive arm of the state, it cannot expect its application to be considered.
Alongside the monitoring process, we are promoting the twinning of member states with applicant states to support and help the applicants. That should be examined in great detail in Committee and on the Floor of the House from time to time. Such examination would assist us, the Governments of the applicant countries and many non-governmental organisations that are pushing to raise the level of human rights in those countries.
My final point—I say that in case any hon. Members want to raise any further points with me before I sit down—relates to the suggestion from the hon. Member for Hallam that the differences of approach in France and Germany might lead to people being returned to face serious harm, or what he called the wrong kind of persecution. The margin of appreciation—the fact that a person to whom we might grant asylum might not qualify in another member state, or the reverse, which has been true in the past—does not mean that the applicant will be returned to their country of origin to face serious human rights abuses. The argument relates principally to France and Germany, which have subsidiary provisions in their laws—which they observe—that prevent the removal of people who do not qualify for asylum but who face other threats to their life and liberty. Last year, France introduced a new concept of territorial asylum, which is designed to apply to those who do not qualify for asylum under the 1951 convention, but who qualify for protection under article 3 of the European convention on human rights.

Mr. Charles Wardle: Just to clarify the point, is the Home Secretary saying that France and Germany have provisions that roughly parallel our exceptional leave to remain?

Mr. Straw: I think that in practice the answer is yes. I do not for a moment have knowledge of what they call their permission, but both countries have provisions under which, even though a case is not accepted on convention grounds, the applicant is none the less given a right to reside on other grounds, typically relating to article 3 of the ECHR.
I know that the House has been waiting to hear what the acronym OFPRA stands for. That is the office in France that deals with asylum seekers, and does it very

well. It stands for Office Français de Protection des Refugiés et Apatrides. For those whose French is not as good as mine, apatrides means stateless persons.

Mr. Clappison: D'Hondt?

Mr. Straw: I am glad that we have got on to d'Hondt. I could go on at great length about d'Hondt. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] I am sure that many people would have fled and claimed asylum had Victor d'Hondt been alive. The important thing to remember about him is that he was Belgian. On that note, I commend the new clause to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 3

REMOVAL OF ASYLUM CLAIMANTS IN OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES

'.—(1) Subsection (2) applies if the Secretary of State intends to remove a person who has made a claim for asylum ("the claimant") from the United Kingdom to—

(a) a member State, or a territory which forms part of a member State, otherwise than under standing arrangements; or
(b) a country other than a member State which is designated by order made by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section.

(2) Nothing in section 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Appeals Act 1993 (protection of claimants from deportation etc.) prevents the claimant's removal if—

(a) the Secretary of State has certified that, in his opinion, the conditions set out in subsection (6) are fulfilled;
(b) the certificate has not been set aside on an appeal under section 51; and
(c) the time for giving notice of such an appeal has expired and no such appeal is pending.

(3) Subsection (4) applies if the Secretary of State intends to remove a person who has made a claim for asylum ("the claimant") from the United Kingdom to a country which is not—

(a) a member State; or
(b) a country designated under subsection (1)(b).

(4) Nothing in section 6 of the Immigration and Asylum Appeals Act 1993 (protection of claimants from deportation etc.) prevents the claimant's removal if—

(a) the Secretary of State has certified that, in his opinion, the conditions set out in subsection (6) are fulfilled;
(b) the certificate has not been set aside on an appeal under section 51 or 57; and
(c) the time for giving notice of such an appeal has expired and no such appeal is pending.

(5) For the purposes of subsections (2)(c) and (4)(c), an appeal under section 51 is not to be regarded as pending if the Secretary of State has issued a certificate under section 58(2)(a) in relation to the allegation on which it is founded.

(6) The conditions are that—

(a) he is not a national or citizen of the country to which he is to be sent;
(b) his life and liberty would not be threatened there by reason of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion; and
(c) the government of that country would not send him to another country otherwise than in accordance with the Refugee Convention.

(5) "Standing arrangements" has the same meaning as in section (Removal of asylum claimants under standing arrangements with member States).'.—[Mr. Straw.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 4

FACILITATION OF ENTRY

'.—(1) Section 25 of the 1971 Act (assisting illegal entry) is amended as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), for "seven" substitute "ten".

(3) For subsection (IA) substitute—

"(1A) Nothing in subsection (1)(b) applies to anything done in relation to a person who—

(a) has been detained under paragraph 16 of Schedule 2 to this Act;
(b) has been granted temporary admission under paragraph 21 of that Schedule.

(1B) Nothing in subsection (1)(b) applies to anything done by a person otherwise than for gain.

(1C) Nothing in subsection (1)(b) applies to anything done to assist an asylum claimant by a person in the course of his employment by a bona fide organisation, if the purposes of that organisation include assistance to persons in the position of the asylum claimant.

(1D) "Asylum claimant" means a person who intends to make a claim that it would be contrary to the United Kingdom's obligations under the Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Convention for him to be removed from, or required to leave, the United Kingdom.

(1E) "Refugee Convention" and "Human Rights Convention" have the meanings respectively given to them in the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999."

(4) In subsection (5), for "Subsection (1)(a)" substitute "Paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1)".'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Mike O'Brien): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The new clause amends section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 and sends a clear and tough message to the racketeers engaged in encouraging illegal entry—they will go to prison for longer on conviction. It increases from seven years to 10 the maximum custodial sentence that can be imposed following conviction on indictment for certain offences. The offences are: knowingly facilitating the entry of illegal entrants; knowingly facilitating for profit the entry of asylum seekers; and knowingly facilitating the obtaining of leave by deception.
The decision to increase the maximum sentence follows comments from the Court of Appeal earlier this year. It was suggested that an increase was needed to allow an appropriate sentence in the growing number of cases in which someone is convicted in a single act of facilitation relating to the entry of a large number of people. We believe that 10 years' imprisonment is the appropriate maximum penalty.
The offence of facilitating the entry of asylum seekers was created by the previous Government. It is not an offence to facilitate the entry of someone who intends to claim asylum when that is not done for gain or is done by someone employed by a bona fide refugee organisation acting in the course of employment. It is an offence to

facilitate the entry of an asylum applicant when it is done for gain. The offence is aimed at racketeers, not refugee groups.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: How is intent to be established? A commercial airline may bring people in for money—they paid for their tickets—who are discovered to be coming here unlawfully. Where is the distinction to be drawn?

4 pm

Mr. O'Brien: Clearly, an airline that is lawfully bringing someone in is acting lawfully. A racketeer who is bringing in large numbers of people without consent, without information being given to the immigration authorities and without permission to be here is clearly acting unlawfully. I am not quite sure why that should be a problem, but I hope that that clarifies the matter.
Secondly, the new clause amends the definition of an asylum seeker to include someone who intends to claim asylum under the European convention on human rights as well as someone who intends to claim asylum under the 1951 refugee convention. That is to reflect the fact that, once the Human Rights Act 1998 comes into force, people will be able to claim under the ECHR as well as under the refugee convention. The offence of facilitating the entry of an asylum seeker would be rendered meaningless without the amendment, as someone who was prosecuted for the offence would always be able to argue that he believed that the asylum seeker in question had been going to claim under the ECHR, not the refugee convention.
The new clause, therefore, closes that loophole and ensures that the position of those claiming asylum under the ECHR and refugee status is put on a broadly equal footing in respect of these offences. The offence does not currently apply to things done in the course of employment by a bona fide refugee organisation.
Finally, the new clause amends section 25(5) of the 1971 Act. Section 25(5) makes it an offence for a British citizen, or a British dependent territories citizen, British overseas citizen, British subject or British protected person, who is acting outside the UK, to facilitate the entry of an illegal entrant. Subsection (4) of the new clause extends that extra-territorial jurisdiction to acts committed outside the UK by British citizens in order to facilitate the entry of asylum applicants where that is done for profit.
It is in the nature of the offence that, in some cases, the offending actions take place outside the UK. Successive Administrations have taken the view that, where the offence is committed by a British citizen, we should have jurisdiction to prosecute the offender.
Where the offence is one of facilitating the entry of someone who intends to claim asylum or protection under the ECHR, there will be more occasions where the offending behaviour occurs outside the UK. That is because, in most cases, the claim will be made as soon as the person concerned arrives in Britain. If we are to have the offence—I stress that it is aimed squarely at racketeers who are prepared to make a profit from trading in human misery—it makes little sense to exclude things that are done outside the UK. To do otherwise would allow,


for example, a British citizen to escape prosecution for loading people into a lorry in France or Belgium as long as he did not help to unload them in Dover.
Taken together, the measures, particularly the first that I described—increasing the prison sentence—are a small but significant reinforcement of the present penalties available to deal with the offence of facilitation. I therefore commend the new clause to the House.

Mr. Clappison: We support the new clause which, as the Minister acknowledges, builds on legislation passed by the previous Government. The important point is that it deals with those involved in the criminal offence of facilitating illegal entry. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) is germane. We are talking about criminal racketeers who knowingly bring people into Britain for gain. That is a serious matter. If the courts feel that it needs to be visited by a higher sentence than is currently available, it is right that we should legislate for a higher sentence of 10 years. It is worth bearing in mind that, in many cases, such criminal racketeering is on a highly organised basis.
There is a suspicion that the scale of this activity is much greater than the number of convictions recorded for this type of activity would suggest. It can be no more than a suspicion because there are no statistics, but there is certainly suspicion that the number of convictions is relatively low in relation to the scale of activity which is probably going on. It is good to have a higher maximum sentence, but that should be accompanied by vigorous enforcement of the law by all agencies concerned, including the police.
In Committee, the Minister said that he was engaged in co-operation with the European authorities and Europol in an effort to counter such matters. We urge the Government to take the matter seriously. We shall be looking for results from that co-operation in the form of more convictions for this type of serious offence which is very much against the public interest.

Mr. Allan: I support the new clause. Human trafficking is disgusting, but it often gets lost because drug trafficking or illegal smuggling attract more attention. Human trafficking inflicts misery and even death on the people who suffer it. For example, people brought in on lorries have been found to he in a dangerous condition and some have perished in transit, so it is legitimate for the Government to target the problem.
There is a difference, however, between offences under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 and those under some of the other forms of prevention of entry. Those forms include the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987 and section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which offers a strict liability way to deal with people working illegally after they arrive in the United Kingdom. Both those measures share similar aims, such as to prevent gang masters bringing in gangs of illegal labourers. Strict liability offences do not require the demonstration of intent, whereas offences under section 25 of the 1971 Act do. We believe that that is often a better route to follow.
I hope that the Government will remember that we strongly support action under section 25 of the 1971 Act to deal with people proven to be traffickers with intent and that, when we criticise some of the other strict

liability offences, they are not tempted to claim that we are soft on illegal entrants and illegal working. We want the provisions to be strengthened and used more thoroughly in the context of an intelligence-led approach to dealing with gang masters who bring people into the country illegally to work in sweatshops.
We are worried that some of the other strict liability offences may lead to a diminution in the penalties levied against such people. The prosecuting authorities may go for strict liability offences, such as are available under section 8 of the 1996 Act or the Immigration (Carriers' Liability) Act 1987—which this Bill broadens to include lorry drivers—because they are easier to prove, rather than opting for prosecution of acts of intent as defined in section 25 of the 1971 Act and which we hope the new clause will make even more effective.
I hope that the Minister will respect the distinction that we draw between offences committed with intent and those committed under strict liability. We support the greater use of an intelligence-led approach to hitting the real target—the human traffickers who breach not only immigration controls but risk the lives of people in desperate circumstance who are drawn into a web of pain to secure illegal entry.

Dr. Stephen Ladyman: Human trafficking is evil, and the new clause expresses the Government's attempt to deal with the exploitation of refugees. That is to be welcomed, but I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will clarify an element of the proposals that has been much discussed in the media. It has been suggested that a humanitarian who brings into this country a person escaping from oppression or torture might be found guilty of a criminal offence under the Bill. Will my hon. Friend confirm that, if refugees declare themselves to be such at a port of entry and apply for asylum there, they will not be considered clandestine and that no humanitarian in such circumstances will be committing an offence?

Mr. Wardle: I am sure that the House supports the new clause and I do not intend to detain hon. Members for more than a moment. However, will the Minister say whether the seven-year sentence has applied since the 1971 Act was introduced, or has it been amended subsequently? If my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) is correct in suspecting that there has been a great increase in racketeering—that is my impression, and I believe that it may be the Minister's also—is an uplift in the sentence from seven to 10 years a sufficient deterrent to the professional racketeers that we are trying to warn off?
Also, can the Minister give the House an idea of the number of convictions for this offence which have been secured in the past couple of years? If he cannot do so now, I hope that he will be able to in due course.

Mr. Bottomley: Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle), I seek information on the pattern of sentencing and the number of convictions. That would allow us to see whether raising the sentence from seven years to 10 is a demonstration change made in Parliament or a real change on the ground.
Secondly, is there any kind of bounty system? If some people undertake illegal commerce for gain, it is likely that others might wish to gain small amounts of money


for information that would lead to detection. It seems odd to pay large amounts for trials and to keep people in jail but not to use some imagination and some small sums of money to make people suspicious of those around them who may be involved in illegal activity.

Mr. O'Brien: I am grateful to the various Members who have welcomed the increase in sentence. Racketeering and trade in human misery is increasing, as the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said, and we need to ensure that the law against racketeering is vigorously enforced. We need an intelligence-led approach, and, since entering government, we have encouraged the security services to co-operate with their contacts in other European and eastern European countries so that we can increase our information from those countries. Our co-operation with various countries is improving and we continue to work hard on it. Members of the immigration service and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate have made various visits to build on contacts as well as maintaining contacts with Europol and other Governments.
I have met Ministers from various countries and have visited countries in central Europe and I have encouraged them to take the initiative and to build on the gathering of intelligence about facilitation that takes place through their countries. In particular, much of the trade is directed through central Europe. Much co-operation is occurring, and convictions are being achieved in other European countries as a result of the exchange of information that we have generated.
We are also trying to disrupt and discredit traffickers. It is sometimes difficult to achieve a conviction because of lack of evidence. However, we may be able to disrupt the trade, and trade is falling off in several places, although I cannot go into detail on that.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) for his welcome for the new clause. Traffickers and gang masters are a serious problem, and we need an array of laws in order to deal with them. My hon. Friend the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) asked about those who bring in refugees for humanitarian reasons, perhaps those who are fleeing for their lives. The only offence is to facilitate the entry of an asylum seeker or someone seeking refuge under the European convention on human rights if it is done for gain. It is not an offence to do so for humanitarian purposes. Provided that the asylum seeker makes a proper and honest claim as soon as he or she arrives, the person would not be prosecuted.
The hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) asked whether seven to 10 years was enough. We are advised that it is. The courts have asked for an increase because of the increasing sophistication of racketeers coming before the courts. We will monitor the sentence and, if it proves to be insufficient, we will consider increasing it further.
4.15 pm
There is clear evidence that because people trafficking can be very profitable, criminal gangs are moving away from dealing in drugs to dealing in people. The people concerned want to be part of the exercise, so it is easy to

get money out of them. The organisation of those trips across Europe to Britain and other European countries is very sophisticated, and large operations often involve contacts between different gangs in different countries who all take a share of the profits. We are monitoring closely the extent to which contacts are developing between those criminal gangs. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the figures for last year's convictions, but I shall obtain that information and write to him.
The hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) asked whether bounties were offered in return for information. I suspect that that happens on a small scale. He is right to say that there may be grounds for developing that practice, and I shall further consider that idea.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 5

EEA NATIONALS

'.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision for appeals against any decision taken in relation to an EEA national concerning his entitlement—

(a) to be admitted to the United Kingdom;
(b) to reside, or to continue to reside, in the United Kingdom; and
(c) to be issued with, or not to have withdrawn, a residence permit.

(2) The regulations may also make provision for appeals against any decision concerning the matters mentioned in subsection (1) taken in relation to a citizen of any other State on whom any such entitlement has been conferred by an agreement to which the United Kingdom is a party.

(3) An appeal under the regulations lies to an adjudicator or, in such circumstances as may be prescribed, to the Commission.

(4) The regulations may provide for appeals from the adjudicator or the Commission.

(5) The regulations may prescribe cases, or classes of case, in which a person is not entitled to appeal while he is in the United Kingdom.

(6) The regulations may make provision under which an appellant may be required to state, in such manner as may be prescribed, any grounds he has or may have for wishing to be admitted to, or to remain in, the United Kingdom additional to those on which he is appealing and for the consequences of such a requirement.

(7) Part IV has effect subject to any regulations made under this section.

(8) "EEA national" means a person who—

(a) is, or claims to be, a national of an EEA State (other than the United Kingdom); or
(b) enjoys, or claims to enjoy, an entitlement mentioned in subsection (1) because he is a member of the family of a national of an EEA State (other than the United Kingdom).

(9) "Member of the family" has such meaning as may he prescribed.

(10) "Residence permit" means any permit or other document issued by the Secretary of State as proof of the holder's right of residence in the United Kingdom.

(11) "The Commission" means the Special Immigration Appeals Commission.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 31, 68, 71, 72 and 93.

Mr. O'Brien: EU law regulates the admission and stay of European Economic Area nationals and their family


members. I point out, for those who are not immediately familiar with the concept of the EEA, that it consists essentially of EU member states, as well as Norway, Iceland, Andorra and Liechtenstein.
In certain circumstances, an appeal right is required against a decision to refuse admission to EEA nationals or to withdraw a residence permit. Those rights are set out in the Immigration (European Economic Area) Order 1994, where they cross-refer to appeals under the Immigration Act 1971. We are repealing that Act's appeal provisions, and therefore need to amend the EEA provisions.
In the consultation paper on appeals that we published last July, we pointed out that the relationship between the 1971 Act appeals and the EEA appeals was confusing and needed to be addressed. The responses supported our proposal to separate EEA appeals. We therefore intend to provide clear, stand-alone appeal rights in line with EU law. Procedurally, however, the exercise of those rights will be integrated with any non-EEA rights of appeal to which the person may be entitled, and the one-stop system will be applied to ensure a quick and decisive outcome.
The new clause enables us to make regulations providing for EEA appeals in the circumstances required by EU law; defines necessary terms of reference, and enables the regulations to apply the one-stop procedure and restrict access to non-EEA appeals where appropriate. I invite the House to accept the new clause.

Mr. Clappison: This is another new clause that is being introduced at a late stage and concerns a new matter that was not subject to the Special Standing Committee procedure. The Minister echoed the earlier remarks of the Home Secretary on a similar new clause and said that new clause 5 was foreshadowed by a consultation paper last year, so those who are interested in these subjects were put on notice. I say to the Home Secretary and the Minister that those who gave evidence about the Bill—expert groups, immigration lawyers and so on—were expected to deal only with matters that were included in the Bill. It would have been difficult for them to foresee all the matters that the Bill could possibly have included, so it is a bit much to expect them to have commented on matters that were not included.
The Minister has explained his new clause to the House. He is a fair man, and if he had been on the receiving end of that explanation, he would agree that it was not, on first hearing, clear to all concerned. It involves a certain amount of legal technicality. I think that the gist of the Minister's comments was that this is some tidying-up exercise caused by other changes to the rights of appeal, in order to bring those for EEA citizens into line.
We still wonder why all these matters could not have been foreseen and included in the Bill earlier, so that we could have considered the changes to the rights of appeal alongside the others, and so that those who are interested in these matters, including immigration lawyers, who are far more versed in them than we are, had an opportunity to comment.
I am not a conspiracy theorist, but if I were, I would have been awake for several nights having read the new clause. The Minister told us that the proposal to bring our legislative position on EEA nationals' rights into line with that of the rest of the European Union was included in the

Lord Chancellor's consultation paper in July, yet we did not hear any more about it—a conspiracy theorist might deem that a remarkable coincidence—until the new clause was tabled on Thursday. If I were a conspiracy theorist, I could have a field day on speculation arising from that, but I am not, so I shall simply put a question to the Minister. Are the rights of appeal of EEA nationals being dealt with in this way to meet the requirements of European Community law?

Mr. O'Brien: The hon. Member for Hertsmere insists that he is not a conspiracy theorist, yet the great Tory conspiracy theory about Europe and all things European seems to have raised its ugly head in his speech on a fairly innocuous new clause.

Mr. Clappison: I am a subscriber to the cock-up theory, which will come in very useful in later debates.

Mr. O'Brien: Having served in the previous Government, the hon. Gentleman would know a lot about that.
There has not been a conspiracy. All that has happened is that we have issued a consultation paper on the way in which we should deal with the need to bring provisions for EEA nationals into line with European Union requirements. There is no enormous extension of provisions to cause any controversy. The new clause merely tidies up and clarifies matters, providing a stand-alone set of rules to replace the hotch-potch. I do not say that as any criticism of the previous Government; it is just the way in which things have developed. As a result, we shall have a clear set of rules on the procedures, and those who need to access them will be able to do so. The House should support the new clause and the amendments.
The hon. Member for Hertsmere referred to the fact that the terms of the Special Standing Committee did not extend to either the consultation paper or the White Paper. In retrospect, that is regrettable; we live and learn. The process surrounding the Special Standing Committee was new. If I remember rightly, we all considered its terms of reference and decided that they were right. It was always clear during our preparation for the Bill that all it would do was implement the legal part of the policy outlined in the White Paper, so everyone was aware of the Bill's source. There was in no sense an attempt to evade the process.
The hon. Gentleman is right to say that we could consider such issues and, when setting the terms of reference for any Special Standing Committee, take into account the broader context in which policy is developed.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 6

SUPPORT FOR CHILDREN

'.—(1) In this section "eligible person" means a person who appears to the Secretary of State to be a person for whom support may be provided under section 80.

(2) Subsections (3) and (4) apply if an application for support under section 80 has been made by an eligible person whose household includes a dependant under the age of 18 ("the child").

(3) If it appears to the Secretary of State that adequate accommodation is not being provided for the child, he must exercise his powers under section 80 by offering, and if his offer is accepted by providing or arranging for the provision of, adequate accommodation for the child as part of the eligible person's household.

(4) If it appears to the Secretary of State that essential living needs of the child are not being met, he must exercise his powers under section 80 by offering, and if his offer is accepted by providing or arranging for the provision of, essential living needs for the child as part of the eligible person's household.

(5) No local authority may provide assistance under section 17 of the Children Act 1989 (local authority support for children and their families) in respect of a dependant under the age of 18, or any member of his family, at any time when—

(a) the Secretary of State is complying with this section in relation to him; or
(b) there are reasonable grounds for believing that—

(i) the person concerned is a person for whom support may be provided under section 80; and
(ii) the Secretary of State would be required to comply with this section if that person had made an application under section 80.

(6) "Assistance" means the provision of accommodation or of any essential living needs.

(7) Subsection (8) applies if accommodation provided in the discharge of the duty imposed by subsection (3) has been withdrawn.

(8) Only the relevant authority may provide assistance under section 17 of the Act of 1989 in respect of the child concerned.

(9) "Relevant authority" means the local authority within whose area the withdrawn accommodation was provided.

(10) In such circumstances as may be prescribed, subsection (5) dous not apply.'.—[Mr. Straw.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Straw: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Madam Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 15, in clause 79, page 51, line 2, leave out 'or' and insert—
'( ) is a child who is being looked after by the asylum—seeker, or his spouse, who is under 18 and dependent on him; or'.
Government amendment No. 70.
Amendment No. 1, in clause 101, page 62, line 37, at end insert—
'(2A) Subsection 1(e), (j) and (k) of this section shall not apply to an asylum seeker who has a dependant under the age of 18, but income support shall be paid at the urgent cases rate as prescribed.'.
Government amendment No. 3.
Amendment No. 27, in clause 108, page 66, line 38, leave out 'may be' and insert 'are being'.

Mr. Straw: A good deal of reference has rightly been made in our debates on the Floor of the House to the work of the Special Standing Committee and to the debate outside the House that that work generated. I have never believed in the theory that what Ministers and their officials produce and present to the House at First Reading is perfection and can never be worthy of improvement. Indeed, it would render the work of the House otiose if that were the case. Sometimes the way in which a policy is put into practice has not been dealt with satisfactorily in a Bill; sometimes the policy itself may have to be changed. That is part of the very important

work of the House. Sometimes, even if the Minister does not want to change the policy, the House decides that it does. It is for Ministers to propose and for Parliament to dispose.
The work of the Special Standing Committee has enhanced the scrutiny of the Bill. That is very much to the credit of the system as well as to the credit of Members who served on the Committee and those who gave evidence to it.
I hope that my hon. Friends will agree that one of the areas that came within the first category of which I spoke—where the policy, which I hope to justify to my hon. Friends, was clear, but where we accept that the execution of the policy and the words used were not satisfactory—relates to the references in the Bill to the Children Act 1989. Wider issues are associated with that, some of which will be debated now, and some later. Given the original wording of the clause that started as clause 99 and is now clause 108, there has been understandable concern about whether we are seeking to remove from the children of asylum seekers the protection afforded by the 1989 Act.
The Government never intended to remove from asylum seekers the protection afforded by the 1989 Act. Rather, it has been our intention to transfer responsibility for providing accommodation and essential living needs from local authority social service departments to the new Asylum Support Directorate of the Home Office. There was nothing sinister in the wording of what is now clause 108, so I assure the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) that there was no conspiracy.

Mr. Allan: Or a cock-up?

Mr. Straw: No, not even a cock-up. Sometimes, first efforts and second efforts do not amount to what is needed, so things need to be changed.
If the House expects Ministers to come to this place and to propose amendments in light of discussion, it is important that there should be some good will on both sides, and a recognition—I make a general, not an ad hominem point—that it is easier for Ministers to do so if they are not accused of a cons`iracy or cock-up every time that they make a change in response to criticism in the House. A more accurate accusation would be that we have listened carefully to the arguments and accepted them, as is the case here.
We have decided to replace clause 108 with new provisions which I believe express far better the intentions of Ministers, and which in particular respond to the concerns of hon. Members, especially Labour Members, about the protection that the Bill should provide for children. The new clause places on the Secretary of State a duty in respect of children—defined as dependants under the age of 18—of asylum seekers. Where the Secretary of State considers that adequate accommodation is not being provided for the child in question, or that the child's essential living needs are not being met, the Secretary of State will have a duty—not a discretion, but an obligation—to use the powers under clause 80 to offer to provide that.
4.30 pm
The phrases in new clause 6 are drawn from equivalent phrases in the Children Act 1989. The purpose is to ensure that the assistance provided in such cases is comparable with that provided under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, of which, for these purposes, local authorities are being relieved. Where the Secretary of State's offer is accepted, he falls under an obligation to provide, or to arrange to have provided, the necessary accommodation or other living needs.
That will address the basic needs for accommodation, food and other support of the asylum-seeking family. As at present, local authority social services departments will retain responsibility for addressing the individual needs of children that extend beyond the norm—for example, needs that arise from physical, medical or educational problems.
We recognise the care and expertise with which social services departments have exercised those duties. The House will recognise in turn that it was never Parliament's intention when the Children Act 1989 went through the House that the Act should be used, as it has come to be used, to deal with the day-to-day living needs of asylum seekers.
The local authorities had that duty imposed on them only as a result of a landmark judgment by the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords, following the previous Government's refusal to provide for any support for in-country applicants for asylum. We can debate the matter at greater length on Third Reading.
One of the reasons why we objected so strongly to the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, which the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) mentioned yesterday—I make no apology for our opposition to it—was that we believed that the 1996 Act would neither be fair nor effective. It has certainly not proved effective—which is why, three years later, we are having to introduce a comprehensive reform of asylum and immigration law—and it is also profoundly unfair.
The 1996 Act was so unfair that asylum seekers took a number of local authorities to court on the ground that there must be some duty on someone to support children who would otherwise be destitute. The noble and learned Members of the Appellate Committee stated that, unless Parliament clearly intended to remove all measure of support from statute, in their judgment, the duty fell to local authorities under the provisions of the Children Act 1989 and, in respect of single people, of section 21 of the National Assistance Act 1948.
Members of the Appellate Committee were judicially interpreting parts of those two Acts in a way that had not been anticipated, but they did so to meet a profound social need. As I have explained and will explain again, we seek to meet that need in a different way.
I recognise that hon. Members want to ensure that the children of asylum seekers are not treated significantly differently because of their asylum status. They will not be. Local authorities are being relieved of their support powers. Local authorities—as it happens, many controlled by the Labour party, but some controlled by other parties—in inner London boroughs and in some Kent districts pleaded with us to relieve them of the burden of supporting asylum seekers in their areas because they could not cope.
Anyone who knows the true burden that has fallen on Kent social services department, on Dover district council and on inner London boroughs including Westminster, Camden, Lambeth and Hackney, as well as Waltham Forest and one or two outer London boroughs, will understand why some of those authorities have been at the end of their tether. Fifty per cent. of all asylum-seeker families are being supported by a handful of local authorities. That burden is simply unsustainable, so we propose instead that local authorities be relieved of their support powers and that those be replaced with a duty on the Secretary of State to provide support.
Aside from local authorities' objections about the disproportionate burden that was falling on a handful of authorities, there was also the fact that, in practice, the kind of support that was being provided by local authorities differed considerably from one authority to another.
No authority has the power to pay any cash whatever to singles. Thus our provision for a mixture of vouchers and cash represents a significant improvement, as I pointed out on the radio yesterday. Local authorities have a power to provide some cash and some benefits in kind to families, but their provision has varied considerably. In some areas, all the provision has been made by way of vouchers, whereas in others it has been made by a mixture of cash and vouchers. I do not happen to think that that is a satisfactory arrangement, and neither do the local authorities. There is now a clear duty, which will be exercised consistently across the country.
I understand—although I do not accept—some of the arguments that the level of support is not sufficient, but we can at least now have a proper argument about what the appropriate level of support should be. Moreover, as the regulations to underpin the primary powers in the Bill are introduced, there can be further and more detailed discussion about the precise levels of support.
I shall now deal with some of the other amendments in the group. Amendment No. 15 follows a similar amendment that was tabled in Committee. As we made clear on that occasion, we intend that the family group to be supported under part IV of the Bill should be the same as in the substantive asylum application. I wish to make it clear, particularly to my hon. Friends who are concerned about whether the definition of "family" includes only blood relations, that that is not the case. It may include minors who are not children—blood relatives—of the principal applicant, but who nevertheless live as part of the asylum seeker's family unit, either because they have been separated from their own parents or for some worse reason, for example, because their parents have been killed. That could include children who are totally unrelated to the asylum seeker concerned, as well as those who are more distantly related, such as nephews and nieces.
For that reason, although for the purposes of the support arrangements, a "dependant" is defined in clause 79 as the spouse and minor children of the asylum seeker or of his spouse, there is provision for regulations to be made adding to that definition, and it will be so added to. In the light of the reassurance that I have given that we intend that the family group for the purpose of the support arrangements should be the same as for the asylum application, I hope that those who tabled amendment No. 15 will accept that there is no need for it.
Amendment No. 1 seeks to exclude asylum seekers with families from the new support arrangements by allowing them access to the social security benefit system throughout their application for asylum. That would affect over 10 per cent. of all asylum seeker households. Last year, for example, some 6,000 applicants—a little more than 10 per cent.—had dependants. Altogether, those 6,000 had 13,000 dependants, so the total number of people, and the burden on the social security system, is significantly greater—it is about three times greater—than the proportion of asylum seekers with dependants to the total number of principal asylum applicants.
To exclude asylum seekers with families from those arrangements would be to drive a coach and horses through a central part of our proposals. We are fully committed to supporting destitute asylum seekers for as long as it takes to consider their applications. We are also committed to that because to do otherwise would be to breach our convention obligations.
Our commitment goes further in the case of families, although that point has sometimes not been understood outside the House. Such families will be supported for as long as they remain in this country. That includes families that may have lost, on their initial application, any appeal and any judicial review, and families awaiting removal or deportation. Families with children will be supported under the arrangements as long as they are here, but the whole purpose of this part of the Bill is to support asylum seekers separately from the mainstream social security system.
There are two reasons for that. First, asylum seekers have distinctive needs which are best addressed through the new support arrangements. They generally arrive with no possessions and need help in acquiring living essentials and adjusting to living in a strange country. Secondly, for some people claiming to seek asylum, the current benefit system is a real attraction. I do not by any means suggest that that applies to every asylum seeker, but we would be naive not to recognise that factor.
It is important in that context to get across again the fact that asylum seekers are people who are in very different circumstances. For example, the asylum seekers who last year came from Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and the former Yugoslavia were almost always able to establish a claim for asylum or for exceptional leave to remain in this country. In the case of some countries, 98 per cent. of people—singles as well as those with dependants—are able to establish a claim. Applicants from those four countries account for 70 per cent. of all acceptances of refugees or people given exceptional leave to remain.
A group of about 14 countries—such as Turkey, Nigeria, Algeria, Iran, the Democratic Republic of Congo and Sierra Leone—contributes almost all the other acceptances. The proportion of acceptances ranges from 6 per cent. for applicants from Turkey up to 82 per cent. for applicants from Rwanda. There is a mixed picture and I concede that some of those who are rejected, either for refugee status or for exceptional leave to remain, have none the less made their claims genuinely and in good faith, although they cannot establish them.
Another 16 countries accounted last year for 14,000 applications, almost every single one of which was abusive and neither genuine nor well founded. They

include Eritrea, Pakistan, China, Poland, Lithuania, India, Romania, Kenya, Slovakia, Albania, Latvia, the Czech Republic, Bangladesh, Ukraine, Ecuador and Indonesia. In some cases, virtually none of the applicants have ever been able to establish a claim that their application is well founded.
I turn to the number of applications that have been accepted in the past. The figure for Indonesia, the Czech Republic and Slovakia is nil, and fewer than five applications were accepted from Poland, Albania, Lithuania, Latvia, Bangladesh and a couple of other countries. The numbers are tiny, and applications from those countries are typically facilitated by criminal gangs. Such people come here partly to make use of the benefit system. No Government can readily accept that.

Mr. Allan: Will the Home Secretary clarify for the record that the largest number of asylum seekers—that is, applicants—come from the top four countries that he named: the former Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, Iraq and Somalia? The largest national groups to whom the support system will apply will be those very groups whose asylum claims are likely to be recognised.

Mr. Straw: I accept what the hon. Gentleman says as a matter of arithmetic, and I defend the system that we are putting in place. As the House knows—I shall put it on the record—we intend to ensure that families are dealt with under the new system within two months. If their cases are genuine and well founded, as we have adjudged them to be in the past, it is highly probable that they will be in the system for only two months, because they will then be granted refugee status or exceptional leave to remain and will not have to make an appeal.
My hon. Friend the Minister has ensured that these cases are dealt with sympathetically and quickly, and that if we accept a case, we do not let it niggle and go to appeal.

Ms Diane Abbott: I have listened with great care to my right hon. Friend's argument, because it is at the heart of his case for the proposed support system. For the avoidance of doubt, will he confirm that the voucher package he proposes is designed to be a disincentive? Is he content for the large number of people who turn out to be genuine Geneva convention refugees to suffer in order for the system to act as a disincentive to others who are merely economic refugees?

Mr. Straw: I am not saying that. The proposed system is designed as a fair and just way of supporting people seeking asylum in this country. The availability of cash benefits—the provision that we are making, but by a different means—is open to abuse and is abused, as, I suggest, my hon. Friend and everyone else knows. There is no question but that there is a small industry of people coming in and seeking cash benefits at port. One of the attractions is the availability of cash benefits.
I am clear that the support we provide will ensure that no asylum seeker remains destitute. We are using the voucher system not to disadvantage existing asylum seekers but to ensure that social security benefits, which were never designed for this purpose, are no longer


available, because that amounts to an incentive to people who have no claim whatever to come to this country and abuse the system. That is a different point.

Ms Abbott: I hate to quibble with a colleague who is both a distinguished Home Secretary and a distinguished lawyer, but if cash benefits are an incentive and if his system is supposed to be superior to cash benefits, it must, of necessity, be a disincentive. One of the problems I have with this system is that it is quite wrong to have a welfare system that is set up on the basis of the old poor law deliberately to be a disincentive.

Mr. Straw: I do not accept that that is what it is, but I also do not think that it is sensible policy making to set up a system that is an open invitation to fraud and abuse, as is the system of cash benefits. I remind my hon. Friend that that system is currently available only to people who apply at port. Many of the people who have more well founded applications do not apply at port, because of the way in which they have come into this country. Many of those with profoundly unfounded claims who come in clandestinely, who know the ropes and who apply at port are able to use the cash benefits system, unlike those with well-founded claims. I do not think that that is sensible.
I also do not think that it is sensible for us to end up with a system under which some asylum applicants enjoy one type of support, whereas others enjoy a quite different one through local authorities.
On the matter of the poor law, we do not have to look into the crystal ball or in history books to see how a system such as that which we propose would work. We know about it from the experience of local authorities, and I have not heard local authorities say that they are providing "poor law" assistance. Those that provide assistance have worked commendably hard, and on the whole the results have been good. Their problem, and ours—it is a problem in my hon. Friend's area, as it is in many other parts of inner London—is that the burden on individual authorities is far too great. That is why we need a national system.
I know that many of my hon. Friends wish to speak, as do Opposition Members. [Interruption.] My Parliamentary Private Secretary, who is not supposed to say a word, asks "What Opposition Members?" In any event, it is probably sensible for me to stop speaking now, listen to what my hon. Friends have to say and respond later.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Straw: I was trying to be helpful to my hon. Friends.

Mr. Corbyn: I am trying to be helpful to the Home Secretary.

Mr. Straw: As ever.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I cannot allow two Members to be on their feet at the same time, and I am trying to decide who should have the Floor. I call the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

Mr. Corbyn: Before sitting down, will my right hon. Friend tell us the cost of bringing back a social security

benefits system for asylum seekers, and his estimate of the cost of the system that he proposes and the system that local authorities have been operating for the past three years?

Mr. Straw: I shall endeavour to provide those figures when I sum up the debate.

Mr. Clappison: I shall concentrate on the new clause and on amendments Nos. 15 and 27, which I tabled along with other Opposition Members. I should add that amendment No. 27 relates to clause 108, and as clause 108 is to be taken out of the Bill, is probably redundant.
We are dealing with an important subject which has caused considerable concern to all who have commented on the Bill—both in the House and outside—and to the witnesses who gave evidence to the Special Standing Committee. Hon. Members will have become more familiar than ever with the body known as the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees in recent weeks, because of its activities in the Balkans. It was Hope Hanlon of the UNHCR who described the arrangements for children proposed in the Bill as
fundamentally unacceptable, and even inhumane".
Serious concern has also been expressed by a wide range of major children's charities, including Barnardos, the Children's Society, UNICEF and the Save the Children Fund, as well as by a number of religious groups and interested organisations.
New clause 6 takes the debate a stage further. As the Home Secretary has said, it replaces clause 99, which sought to deprive the children of asylum seekers of some of the important protection afforded by the Children Act 1989. The Home Secretary says that the Government have listened to views that have been expressed. I think that they could scarcely have done otherwise, given the volume of concern expressed to them. We shall see in a moment just how much of what the Government have heard they have implemented, but new clause 6—the modified version of the Government's original intentions—is still the subject of serious concern in children's charities and other organisations, on the grounds that formerly applied to clause 99.
The Government, however, have now retreated from clause 99. Indeed, there seems to be a wide consensus that it was a bad clause. I could say that a political spectrum is opposed to clause 99—now clause 108. Amendment No. 3 removes the clause from the Bill. It is signed by, among others, me, my right hon. Friends, the Secretary of State and the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn).

Mr. Straw: The new politics.

Mr. Clappison: We could hardly get a wider spectrum than that. I will leave it to hon. Members to guess who stands where in the spectrum.
Clause 99 has now become clause 108, which is to be taken out of the Bill. The key question that we need to deal with is: does new clause 6, replacing clause 108, meet the concerns that generated such widespread opposition to the original clause?
As the Home Secretary said, the Government's intention is that the needs of children of asylum seekers should be met through the new asylum support system, rather than through section 17 of the Children Act 1989, or indeed any other provisions. Quite a number of statutory responsibilities have been stripped away from various agencies by the Bill, but it is section 17 that is the most important. The Home Secretary said that the Government's intention was to transfer the responsibilities under section 17 from local authorities to the new asylum support organisation. That may be the Government's intention, but we have to ask: do new clause 6 and the transfer protect children in as comprehensive and assured a way as section 17 does and was intended to do?
Clause 108 asserted that, if the families concerned were eligible for support under the asylum support system, their children could not be given protection under section 17. That created a problem for families who were entitled to receive support under the asylum support system, but did not, in fact, receive such support for one reason or another, which was all too possible because of the rigidities and inadequacies of the way in which the Government's asylum support apparatus is designed.
We were concerned—and so were many others—that children could slip through the safety net that the Government were seeking to put in place and that, as a result, children and families could suffer hardship, especially children who were taken into care and separated from their families—which is undesirable and should be avoided if possible—or even worse. If children slip through the asylum support system because of its inadequacies, local authorities will not have section 17 powers to step in and to provide protection for those children and to keep them with their families.
The Home Secretary has asserted that it was not the intention of the framers of the Children Act to cater for situations such as the one that he has outlined. That may be so, but he is wrong in one respect. The framers of the Act, which received all-party support, intended to provide comprehensive protection for children, covering all contingencies; going back to the spirit of the Act, I think that that was its intention.
Indeed, the Opposition of the day—which was, of course, the right hon. Gentleman's party—sought and received assurances from the then Government that the Act would provide a safety net to protect children and to keep families together, even when homelessness legislation or possibly—although they did not contemplate it at the time—immigration and asylum legislation failed children. Their intention was that all children should receive comprehensive protection.
That was the assurance that was sought by the then Opposition. That was the assurance that was given by the then Government. I give way to the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) on that point. [Interruption.] I am sorry; I thought that he wanted to intervene. I may have brought some twinges of recollection to his mind. He will perhaps remember the amendment that was moved by the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston (Mr. Clarke)—then the Member for Monklands, West—who sought to include that very assurance in the Bill.
5 pm
Such an assurance was the basis of the Children Act 1989, which Barnardos described as
a landmark piece of legislation implemented with all-party support establishing the principle of acting in the best interests of the child and providing a framework for protecting and safeguarding the welfare of all children who were on British support.
Barnardos goes on to say:
We are aware that the Government's intention in clause 108 is to only remove families, whose needs arise out of their being destitute, from section 17 of the Children Act. This introduces a discriminatory element into the working of the Act and violates its overarching principle that the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration.
Back in 1989, the right hon. Member for Coatbridge and Chryston, speaking for the then Opposition, said:
It is to assert the paramountcy of the child's interest that we have tabled the amendment."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 May 1989; c. 137.]
Today, however, the roles have been reversed. We still support the principle of the 1989 Act—that all children on British soil should be given the same protection—and are now seeking an assurance from the Government that that principle shall continue in legislation. We want there to be a safety net for all children, because no child should go without protection. Labour Members may care to reflect on the fact that the previous Government were prepared to give such an assurance.

Mr. Straw: I have sought to give the assurances that the hon. Gentleman is seeking. However, is he saying that he believes that the current arrangements—in which the burden falls disproportionately on a handful of local authorities—should continue?

Mr. Clappison: The first part of the Home Secretary's intervention seemed to contradict the second part. He has been attempting to tell us that the Bill is as good as the 1989 Act and that it will provide the same protection, and we are questioning whether that is so. The matter requires examination. The Home Secretary seemed also to be saying that the Bill will not offer the same protection.

Mr. Straw: The whole purpose of new clause 6 is to transfer the duty for asylum-seeker families that arises under the 1989 Act to the Secretary of State; but it amounts to the same duty. The hon. Gentleman seems to be saying that he believes that that duty should be undertaken only by individual social services departments, and that he therefore disagrees with many Conservative-controlled local authorities, such as Westminster, which say that the burden is falling intolerably on them and should not continue. Will he clarify the point?

Mr. Clappison: The Home Secretary is meandering on to an entirely different path. The issue at stake is whether the provisions of the Children Act—which has been in force since 1989, through much of the life of the previous Government—will continue. Will future arrangements for children preserve the same duty?

Mr. Straw: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way again, but I need to press him on this point. We—but also Conservative-controlled local authorities—need to know whether he is saying that current


arrangements should continue, or whether he accepts the comments of local authorities—such as Westminster, but also many others—that the current burden is intolerable.
There is common ground on the issue of the duties imposed by the 1989 Act, although who should bear those duties is a separate issue. However, the hon. Gentleman has been dodging the question that I have asked him three times. Is he saying that the current system—in which individual local authorities support asylum seekers without national arrangements—should continue?

Mr. Clappison: It is a separate point. However, if the Home Secretary wants to move on to the matter of dispersal—[Interruption.] That is the issue exciting his colleagues from Kent—the hon. Members for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) and for Erith and Thamesmead (Mr. Austin)—and perhaps other Labour Members. The Home Secretary may be aware that, in Committee, the Opposition—unlike all his colleagues in Committee—made it clear that, in principle, we did not oppose, but supported, the Government's proposal. If Ministers look at the Committee's proceedings, they will see that that is so. We did not oppose what the Home Secretary was trying to do, but were asking about the protection of children, which is quite a separate matter.

Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clappison: Yes, the hon. Gentleman was on the Committee and he will be able to confirm my point.

Dr. Ladyman: I put it to the hon. Gentleman that, in Kent, the burden of supporting children under the Children Act currently falls on the pocket of council tax payers. The Government's amendment would transfer the cost to the Secretary of State. Is he or is he not in favour of that transfer?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman will remember that, in Committee, we supported what the Government were trying to do and that it was his hon. Friends who had difficulty. Incidentally, I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has now found his voice, which was not often heard in the Committee. We made our support quite clear, even though the Government's aims are controversial in some quarters. I know that some hon. Members view the system as being one of forced dispersal, and we have some concerns about the details, but that is a separate point. My question to the Home Secretary now is whether the protection being given under new clause 6 is as good as the protection currently available under the Children Act. New clause 6 is intended to look as though it offers greater protection, but does it in fact merely draw a veil over a hole that stubbornly remains?
The new clause is certainly complicated. Subsections (3) and (4) are its key provisions, but subsection (5) continues to deny children protection under section 17 of the Children Act. Do subsections (3) and (4) protect children by allowing for the provision of accommodation and living needs? Under subsections (3) and (4), the Secretary of State decides whether the accommodation or support being provided for the child is adequate. Many of those involved, including the Immigration Law Practitioners Association, are highly critical of the

substantial number of provisions in the Bill containing that form of test, which leaves matters at the mercy of the Secretary of State—in practice, at the mercy of officialdom.
An even more significant issue arises when we consider how the Secretary of State is to intervene to protect those children who he decides are not being provided with adequate accommodation and living needs. In those circumstances, the Secretary of State must exercise his powers under clause 80 to offer help. The problem is that it may well be that the Secretary of State has already exercised his powers under clause 80 and that it is that exercise of powers which has created the situation in which the child is going without accommodation or support. Given the rigidity and inadequacy of clause 80 and the asylum support system, that is all too possible; and, as the hon. Member for South Thanet will remember, expert witnesses said that that might happen.
Those expert witnesses also warned of another danger inherent in the Government's system. We all want asylum seekers to be dispersed, but the system is so rigid and inflexible that asylum seekers might well be dispersed from Kent and London, but end up drifting back to Kent and London because of the statutory prohibition on their preferences being taken into account.

Mr. Mike Gapes: I represent a London borough in which there are many Somali asylum seekers, and I am in favour of a dispersal policy, provided there is adequate support in other parts of the country. Is the hon. Gentleman saying that people would be able to reject the accommodation and support provided in the north of England and go back to a London borough, and that it would then be for the borough to shoulder the burden of their support, even though such boroughs are already experiencing the problems that have triggered the need for a dispersal policy?

Mr. Clappison: The hon. Gentleman was not a member of the Committee, so he may not realise that, in Committee, we explained that we were in favour of dispersal, but that we were concerned that dispersal without any opportunity to take preferences into account—the Secretary of State will be statutorily forbidden to take preferences into account—would create a far higher risk of asylum seekers being dispersed to one part of the country but drifting back to another. In short, we wanted to avoid the sort of problems identified by the hon. Gentleman.
Let us take the case originally brought to the attention of the Special Standing Committee by the Immigration Law Practitioners Association as a critique of the original clause 99 and clause 108. I shall quote briefly from the ILPA evidence to the Committee:
What of the child whose destitute asylum seeking parents 'may' qualify for s74 support, but have disentitled themselves by rejecting an offer of accommodation in a far flung location? Is the child to be separated from them and taken into care for the lack of s17 powers to meet his needs within his family?"—[Official Report, Special Standing Committee, 17 March 1999; c. 262.]
That scenario is all too possible, given that the Bill forbids the new agency from taking preferences into account. The Government appear to have given no ground in the new clause. They have questions to answer on the protection of children and their welfare.
The Government have ignored suggestions from the Conservatives and others that would have made the system a little more flexible by allowing some preferences to be met. Asylum seekers would still be dispersed around the country to relieve the pressure on Kent and London, but there would be less risk of their drifting back. Local authorities and others in those areas have experienced that and warned us about it in their evidence to the Special Standing Committee.
How will subsections (3) and (4) of the new clause work in the case put in the expert evidence of ILPA? It is the parents who reject an offer. We are concerned about the welfare of children, who should not suffer under any circumstances, whoever their parents are and whatever their basis for being in the country. The intention of the original Children Act 1989 was that any child on British soil should benefit from its comprehensive protection which puts their interests first. In the case put forward by ILPA, would a different offer be made? Why does the new clause exclude any support under section 17 of the Children Act 1989, whereas the original clause excluded only support under subsection (1) of that section?
We need to consider the Government's words to see whether they give effect to the Children Act. It is all very well talking about a transfer of responsibilities. Will the protection be as good as it is under the Children Act? In a written answer on 9 June, the Home Secretary said that the assistance to children of asylum seekers under the new clause would
be comparable to what would otherwise be available under section 17 of the Children Act 1989."—[Official Report, 9 June 1999; Vol. 332, c. 333.]
He has used similar words today. The word "comparable" creates a nagging doubt in my mind. The word is often used by officialdom in such circumstances. The hon. Member for South Thanet looks puzzled. We want "comparable" to mean "as good as". We want an assurance that the protection will be not just comparable with, but the same as, that afforded by the Children Act, the point of which was to provide a comprehensive safety net for all children.
We agree with the Government's wish for a policy of dispersal that works, although not all Labour Members do. We have tabled constructive amendments to make it work. We are afraid that the Bill increases the risk that it will not work. In all this, we want children to be protected and we want their welfare to be put first. The former Opposition sought comprehensive protection when the Children Bill came before the House in similar circumstances. The then Government gave that assurance. We are looking for the same protection. Will the Government live up to what they were seeking in opposition?

Mr. Neil Gerrard: I shall speak mainly about amendment No. 1. Over the past few weeks, my hon. Friend the Minister has listened to the concerns that have been expressed and he announced concessions on the support system in a written answer last week. His moves are welcome, but I do not believe that we have gone far enough. Amendment No. 1 would be a reasonable compromise. Many of us have serious

concerns about the proposed voucher-based support system. Those concerns are particularly strong in respect of children. The amendment is a compromise, because it would leave others in a support system that has fundamental flaws.
I shall deal first with the principle of the support system. Over the past few weeks, the Government have changed the way in which they talk about it. They initially talked about it purely as a deterrent. It has gradually become clear that it covers more than 70 per cent. of income support, and they have softened their approach. I share the view of my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that the support system was designed with the express aim of deterring abusive applicants. That is also true of other aspects of the Bill. There is a moral problem with a scheme that is designed to do that in the knowledge that it will inevitably also penalise the genuine. When some of those genuine applicants have young children, we should be concerned.
There are also practical issues. Is the proposed system better than the alternatives? Will it work? The Government are still saying that they believe that genuine applicants will not mind whether they are helped in cash or in kind, or what their location is. I seriously question that, particularly for families with children. I am sure that some of my hon. Friends will have comments to make about the effects of a voucher system on children. Location certainly matters. It matters whether young children are in the same area as others with the same ethnic background—children they can form relationships with, play with and go to school with.
We all agree that delivering the system with the concession that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary announced last week in a written answer depends on speed. At Question Time this afternoon, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister talked about targets, saying that an average decision time would be two months, or six months including an appeal. I am still confused about the meaning of the time scales. I have heard that the average length will be two months and that most cases will be dealt with within two months. That is confusing. Whether we are talking about an average or about most cases, it is not a norm that will apply to everyone. Some people will inevitably be in the system for significantly longer. That is important, particularly where children are concerned.
I am wary of suggestions that everything will be all right if we delay the introduction of the system. Let us say that the Home Office does not meet the targets by next April and there is a delay. Some of us have doubts about the ability of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to plan for the new support system in any case, but the worst that we could do to it is ask it to plan for that system to be introduced at some unknown future date.
One cannot expect any organisation to deliver efficiently on that basis, let alone one that has experienced serious problems—even if we are told that they are being tackled—over the past year or two. If the targets are to be met, why do families with children have to be put through the bureaucracy and complexity of the support scheme, with all the decisions about whether they will be supported, at what level and where, and all the administrative costs of the voucher system?
The key argument, which I have heard frequently and which the Home Secretary has used again today, is that cash benefits would act as a draw. Some of the evidence in support of that has been anecdotal, such as that we all know that lots of Poles or Chinese turn up, get their benefit book at the port and go off to work illegally. The only hard evidence that I have seen in any of the Home Office documents is the statement that the claim is justified by what happened following the 1996 Act.
That Act took away cash benefits from in-country applicants. I recall that the then Government argued that any genuine applicants would claim asylum the moment they stepped off the aircraft or boat. We pointed out that 36 per cent. of the asylum claims granted by that same Government in 1994, and 27 per cent. in 1995, were to people who had applied at port; they had recognised many in-country applicants.
The argument that any genuine applicant would apply at port was a load of rubbish; but now we are hearing almost the opposite: that a fraudulent applicant will apply at port, because that is how to get benefits. That is the logic of the argument that cash benefits are a draw. Let us examine the evidence to support that claim. It is true that after 1996 the proportion of applications at port and in country changed. Before, about a third had been at port; in 1996, that went up to 40 per cent.; in 1997–98 to 51 per cent.; and this year, so far, it has gone back down to 40 per cent.
One might have expected that trend to develop, but one would also have expected it to be reflected in the figures for acceptance for asylum or for exceptional leave to remain. If there were real evidence that the availability of cash benefits to port applicants was a draw, one would have expected the percentage of people who were being granted asylum or exceptional leave as port applicants to start to drop away; but that simply has not happened.
In 1998, 39 per cent. of all grants of asylum were to port applicants; that is the highest figure in the past five years. In the same year, 64 per cent. of all grants of exceptional leave went to port applicants; again, the highest figure in the past five years. The majority of the people accepted, according to Home Office statistics, had applied since 1996.
Let us consider some of the individual countries, as the Home Secretary did earlier. It was suggested that everyone from Afghanistan is genuine; 80 per cent. of applicants from there, in each of the past four years, have applied at port. For those from Yugoslavia—also genuine applicants—the highest figure for applications at port in the past four years was 54 per cent., and this past year it was only 40 per cent. The figure for Somalia has hardly ever gone over 50 per cent.
We are told that China generates all these fraudulent applicants. In fact, before the benefit changes, 71 per cent. of Chinese asylum applicants in 1995 were at port, declining to 60 per cent. in 1996. In 1997 and 1998, the figures were down to 26 and 25 per cent. The trend has gone the opposite way. It becomes absolutely clear when one examines the figures that there is no hard evidence to back up the simplistic claim that cash benefits act as a draw.
The fact is that the statistics have never been analysed. I have not seen the slightest analysis of the figures from the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to back up the claim. One can play with statistics in various ways.

For instance, there has been an increase in applications at port over the past few years from people from Pakistan. The best that can be said for the statistics is that they are not very clear. We should not base a significant change in policy—it is completely different from what we said in 1996, before the general election—on such dubious evidence.
A big mistake in discussing the asylum support system is to talk about it as if it were a right, which it is not. There is a gateway, and people have to prove that they are destitute to go through it. They will not all get accommodation and support in the form of cash and vouchers. The Home Office estimates in its asylum support manual that only 70 per cent. of families will get the full package of accommodation and support.
What happens to the other 30 per cent? It certainly cannot be pretended that they are getting more than 70 per cent. of income support to live on, because they will be getting only the cash and the vouchers and not, for example, payments for heating, light and electricity. There is no reason to suppose that they will all be abusive claimants. Where will they be? They will be living with other members of their family, with friends or with other members of their community, who will very often themselves be on low incomes. We are expecting the deprived to support the even more deprived.
I was amazed that the Home Office asylum seekers support document said that one of the reasons for setting up the system was
to contain costs through incentives to asylum seekers to look first to their own means or those of their communities for support.
I have searched in vain through all the details of the proposed support system for what the incentive for that might be—in fact, I can think of one very good one: it will keep people out of this rotten voucher-based system.
I seriously believe that we are in danger of hurting families with children. That is the reason for amendment No. 1. I am concerned about the whole principle. We are in danger of setting up a system which is wrong in principle, which will hurt some of the most vulnerable people and, what is probably even worse, will not work in practice and will end in a shambles.
The principle and the practice both matter, and we should not support the imposition of the system unless we are convinced on both points.

Mr. Allan: I give a small cheer for new clause 6. The Home Secretary said that he wished to see some recognition of the fact that the Government have, to an extent, taken into account hon. Members' concerns, and new clause 6 seems to go some way in the direction that we wanted. I would have given two cheers had the Government stuck simply to supporting amendment No. 3, which seeks to remove clause 108, exempting asylum-seeking children from the Children Act 1989, without then introducing the additional limited powers relating to section 80 support in new clause 6.
I would have given at least two and a half cheers had the Government accepted amendment No. 1, tabled by the hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and his hon. Friends, which is a much better solution to the problem of families with children. I shall reserve three cheers for


when the Government scrap the entire support system and revert to the more sensible and cost-effective benefit-based system,0for which the Government argued at the time of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, but on which they seem to have changed their mind.
The time that people, particularly families, will be on the support systems is important. The Home Secretary reached for his pen and calculator as the hon. Member for Walthamstow referred to mean and average times. I am sure that the Home Secretary could build the d'Hondt divisor in there somewhere, as he calculates whether a significant number of people will be dealt with within two months.
As the hon. Member for Walthamstow said, if we are talking about averages, a two-month average could mean that a significant number of people were on the system for four months if another group of people were dealt with almost immediately. A six-month average would be even more worrying. If a number are dealt with at the beginning of that period, some will be on the system for 10 months, if we are talking about four months beyond the four-month average period for the appeal. Therefore, even under the Government's formula and even assuming that they meet the targets that they have set themselves we are talking about potentially considerable periods. There is widespread concern on both sides of the House, including on the Labour Back Benches, about whether they will meet those targets under current arrangements.
In the general debate about the support system, the Government seem to want to have it both ways. On the one hand, they say that the system is expected to be a deterrent, that they have the problem of people being drawn in by an over-generous system, so they have to reduce the generosity in order to deter people. At the same time, they seem to be arguing that it is a fair and humane system. Those two arguments are fundamentally incompatible. Either it is a harsh system which will act as a deterrent, or it is a humane system which, at best, will have a neutral effect in terms of whether people will choose the UK over any other country in which to apply to claim their rights under the 1951 convention.
Many of the arguments used by the Home Secretary when describing the support system could be applied elsewhere in the benefit system if he chose to do so. It is very much the Victorian poor law attitude; that the system must be harsh so that only those who genuinely need it will stick the rigours of the system. It is indistinguishable from the philosophy of the workhouse to argue that people who genuinely flee persecution will put up with hardship here, so it is all right to impose such hardship and it is a way of sorting out the sheep from the goats. That is an unacceptable approach to the delivery of a support system. We should be separating the sheep from the goats by processing their claims and dealing with them effectively.
I think that I share with many hon. Members the view that the most effective way to deter people from making unfounded applications is to deal with them quickly, to demonstrate that they are unfounded and then to send the individuals back to their country of origin. It is the time factor that is critical, not whether someone is receiving 70 or 100 per cent. of income support. The difference between 70 and 100 per cent. of income support is hardship for those individuals. It makes no fundamental difference to whether they apply in the first place. It

makes a difference only to their standard of living during the intervening period and, in particular, in the context of the amendments that we are discussing, the standard of living of their children. There are deep concerns about what that may imply.
The issue of principle is important when one considers the Children Act 1989. That Act was intended to be a principled piece of legislation. As has been said, it was intended to be applied to all children, placing children's rights at the forefront of any decision about their future and their support. It was not intended to be selected from at will. It was intended as a platform on which children's rights could be appropriately judged by the courts against any other legislation in respect of their welfare.
As a matter of principle, it is disturbing to see any diminution of a significant and landmark Act. The fact that we are prepared to enact such fundamental standards demonstrates the paramount importance of children's rights. The Children Act has worked well. It is depressing that we should tinker around or muck about to remove a particular category of children and deal with them differently.
We must recognise that the level of support proposed is inadequate. There will be problems. In many other areas, when considering levels of support and definitions of poverty the Government have never decided that people are adequately supported on 70 per cent. of income support. Even when one factors in additional fuel costs, and so on, nothing like an adequate level of support will be provided for families under these proposals.
We shall discuss the actual level in detail later, but, in the context of families, there is a particular issue, which is that when calculating support payments we can already come up with a formula that discounts the cost of utilities. For families, it is about £12 a week. That factor is built in, but it does not significantly increase according to the number of children. The amount of income support does increase quite properly, because children create extra expenses, but the utilities costs do not increase incrementally.
If we have a system as proposed here, where we end up with a proportion of income support being paid for each individual, we find that, relative to those on a regular income support system as proposed in amendment No. 1, the larger the family, the more disadvantaged they will be relatively. Each member of that family will have a proportion deducted for utilities costs in a way that would not happen for a family on standard income support.
Liberal Democrats' preference for the Home Secretary's system of support, if it is to come into effect under section 80, is to allow it to be tested against the Children Act. That is what we argued in Committee. If, as the Home Secretary said, the system can genuinely support individuals, why not allow that to be tested? Why does not the Home Secretary have the confidence that, an asylum seeker having been offered his package of support, the courts would reject any claim for support under section 17? We do not expect people in the UK on housing benefit or income support to go the courts and say that they want section 17 support under the Children Act instead, because the court would properly rule that individuals are supported, that children are not in need, because they have a means of support through the benefit system.
If the Home Secretary is confident that his support system for asylum-seeking children under section 80 is genuinely good enough for those individual asylum-seeking children and their families, I do not see why it would ever be successfully challenged in court, and why any court would decide that somebody had to have section 17 Children Act support.
To allow the support system to be challenged would be very much within the spirit of the Children Act. There was no intention that the section 17 provisions should be used for asylum-seeking children. Without the 1996 Act, that would never have been necessary. But if this Bill genuinely puts in place a support system for all children, we shall no longer have the problem of successful challenges under section 17. Therefore, I see no reason why the Home Secretary should break an important principle, which is that the Children Act should apply universally with the interests of the children paramount, and not be dependent on a child being in one category or another.
Another major concern has to be that of the Secretary of State's judgment. That is not a personal comment against this Secretary of State's judgment. For us to base the entry into the system on a Secretary of State's judgment as to whether living and accommodation needs are being met breaches the principle of the Children Act in terms of removing the automatic right and the interests of the child being paramount and replacing that with something that is bound to be subjective to a degree on an individual Secretary of State's judgment, whether it be this Secretary of State or another one from whatever party who will subsequently operate the provisions. We do not know what definition future Secretaries of State will use to decide whether accommodation is adequate and meets peoples' living needs. Our deliberations in Committee left me pessimistic. We tried to find a decent definition of what would be adequate accommodation, and asked whether the normal rules for overcrowding or for people sharing rooms would apply. We were told that the Home Secretary would have his own rules on that.

Dr. Norman A. Godman: Another problem with the support system is its apparent lack of flexibility. It may not be able to help a family caught up in an emergency. That is why many people in Scotland think that a serious mistake has been made in the way in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has amended section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968.

Mr. Allan: I am grateful for that intervention. My colleagues in Scotland have expressed anxiety about the Bill's application there. Responsibility for matters such as social services will rest with the Scottish Parliament, but these proposals will be implemented from Whitehall by a UK-wide directorate. There is genuine scope for discussion about the interaction between the two systems.
The Home Secretary said that he felt that local authorities were doing well in coping with the current system provided for by the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Children Act 1989. However, the evidence from Kent county council was that the relevant people there wished him luck in attempting to bring in a system that they had found to be appalling. We were told that, although the council managed it well, the voucher system was expensive and inefficient, and that it caused problems for asylum seekers and their families.
In response to the earlier comments from the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), it is important to note that local authorities are being rebated for the costs incurred by their additional responsibilities. The Government are proud of the fact that they have rebated those costs in full rather than partially, as was the case under the previous Government. The unfortunate burden imposed by the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 has been a problem for local authorities, but local people should be reassured that they are no longer losing out.
The Home Secretary seems to be proposing to nationalise a system that has been shown to be bad at supporting children in certain areas. I do not see how that will make it any better. If the system fails, as I and the hon. Member for Walthamstow fear, local authorities will pick up the pieces. If people are not offered the appropriate support package and want to drift back to their community, they will do so. Local authorities may not have to provide vouchers, cash payments or accommodation, but they will have to deal with all the resulting social problems.

Ms Abbott: Does the hon. Gentleman share my concern that the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), who did such a workmanlike job in Committee, is alone on the Conservative Benches? That shows how little the Tories care about the living circumstances of refugees and asylum seekers.

Mr. Allan: The lively debate on this and other matters is between members of my party and Labour Members on both the Back Benches and the Front Bench. We share an approach to the solutions that we would like to find, but I praise the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) for his evident concern for the welfare of the children of asylum seekers. I wish that we could convert him to the extent that he rejects the voucher system outright. Instead, he says that Conservative Members do not oppose the system in principle, even though they consider it appalling. That position is not entirely credible.
5.45 pm
The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees gave some important evidence in the oral sessions of the Special Standing Committee, to which the hon. Member for Hertsmere referred. Its representatives accepted that the proposed system in some ways would give people the very basic level of support. Therefore, because people would not starve, they could not go so far as to say that it is incompatible with the UN convention, but they remained worried that different countries would provide different levels of support.
Britain is a wealthy country and can give a level of support to people seeking asylum that is different vrom what other, poorer countries can provide. However, although the UNHCR may consider that the level of support provided here does not breach the convention, it was clear that its representatives believed that we could do more. They considered that we should be proud of that, and not be grudging about it.

Dr. Ladyman: On a point of accuracy, did not the UNHCR evidence make it clear that that organisation believed that the support for genuine refugees had to be


of a particular standard? That point may be slightly pedantic, but we are talking about people seeking that status.

Mr. Allan: I shall check the record, but my understanding is that the UNHCR is concerned to enable people to access their rights under the convention. They cannot do that without support.

Ms Abbott: For the avoidance of doubt, the UNHCR representatives made it clear in informal meetings with Members of Parliament, if not in their oral evidence to the Special Standing Committee, that, just as there should be no discrimination between refugees and British citizens, so there should be none between asylum seekers and British citizens. Any such discrimination would render nugatory people's right to seek asylum.

Mr. Allan: The support system is central to that right. The United Nations convention on the rights of the child is relevant to any discussion of the Children Act 1989. It is unfortunate—to put it mildly—that the Government have not taken the opportunity provided by this Bill to end the UK's reservation on that convention with regard to immigration. They opposed that reservation fiercely in opposytion, and the Bill represents an early opportunity to end it and thus demonstrate their commitment to the rights of the child and to international conventions.
Be that as it may, there is concern that the Bill would breach article 26 of the convention, which deals with children's rights to benefit from social security, and article 27, which covers children's rights to an adequate standard of living. Regardless of the reservation that exists, I hope that the Government will aim to meet the terms of that important convention, at least in spirit.
In conclusion, two matters arising from what the Home Secretary has said deserve examination. He said that the duty in the new clause is effectively the same as the duty under the Children Act 1989. However, two crunch questions need to be asked. The first has to do with the gateway under the support system. Clause 80 makes it clear that support depends on the Secretary of State's judgment about destitution and the suitability of accommodation. At present, the courts apply the Children Act test of levels of destitution, but new clause 6 will make it a matter for the Secretary of State to judge whether a person has access to support under clause 80. That will enable the Secretary of State to indicate that he has discharged his duties, but at what level will families be considered to be appropriate for support under clause 80? That is the first crucial question.

Mr. Straw: I shall deal with the point in greater detail when I respond to the debate, but, in practice, local authorities exercise a gateway under the Children Act. Although they have a duty to provide essential living needs and accommodation for children in those circumstances, they have a discretion about the level that they provide, and that is based on an assessment of need. The hon. Gentleman's point, therefore, is not a strong one.

Mr. Allan: The Home Secretary raises an interesting question. Do we trust him more than a social worker when it comes to making an assessment about children? Those

of us who sat through the Committee remain concerned about the criteria that the Home Secretary would apply in deciding whether someone would have suitable accommodation or adequate living conditions. The Under—Secretary has told us that this tough-talking part of the Bill means that access to the gateway would be difficult and that anyone who had belongings, anywhere to turn or any other support would not pass through the gateway. That is certainly my impression and I hope that the Home Secretary will offer some reassurance today.
The second critical matter is the factors that will be taken into account when providing support or deciding whether duties have been discharged. The Children Act 1989 raises several points about the welfare of children and their access to education and their families. The decision to remove any reference to the preferences of asylum seekers is intended to avoid legal challenges, but we are concerned that access to education and so on will not be taken into account.
As the Bill stands, a person can say that his family is in a certain place where there is an appropriate school, and the Home Secretary may take that into account. The person must not say that he would like to live there. As long as he is offering not a preference but a circumstance, the Home Secretary can take it into account. We remain concerned about how judgments will be taken about the holistic needs of children, accommodation and basic living needs. Will decisions take fully into account education, family access and other forms of support?
I should like the Government to accept amendment No. 1 and to stop mucking the system about. They should stop tinkering with a bad system, saving Home Office staff the headache of setting up the Asylum Support Directorate. The staff have enough problems dealing with immigration work. To impose further work on them would not use most effectively resources that could be better directed. Amendment No. 1 would direct resources towards the Benefits Agency, which has experience and already has a system in place.
The Government should save the taxpayer the additional administrative costs of going through that rigmarole. That might bring some bad headlines in the right-wing press, but it might also persuade Labour supporters to become excited again about their party and to turn out to vote.

Ms Karen Buck: I am incredulous at the synthetic outrage that the Conservative party has expressed on immigration and asylum. Throughout the past decade, the Conservative record has been one of indifference at best and contempt at worst.
I sat for seven years on an inner city authority that has one of the largest and most diverse communities of refugee asylum seekers. However, that did nothing to prepare me for my experience as a Member of Parliament. On my very first day, families poured into my surgery. Many—and many had children—had been waiting for a decision since 1990, 1991 or 1992. They included Iraqis, Kurds, Sudanese, Somalis and Bosnians, and the situations in their own countries made them disproportionately likely to have had a valid claim. Some of them had had the most appalling experiences, and their traumas were well documented by the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture.
The paralysis placed on their lives by the absence of an effective decision-making process has made it impossible for those families to settle or to begin to recover from the psychological trauma that many of them have experienced. Every day, Labour Members see the tragedy of people whose families have been scattered across the globe in the aftermath of war and who have been unable to obtain travel documents or visit their loved ones for years.
We have heard much about these cases, but I should like to give an example to put a human face to the problem. A young Sudanese woman came to this country as a child in 1993 with her father. She has been disabled by a fungal infection of brain and eye which is increasingly rendering her blind. Clinical opinion is that the indecision that has caused every member of her family to suffer clinical depression is a major factor in her absence of recovery. She is bright and highly motivated, as many of our asylum seekers are. This is the third year in which she must defer college entry because there has been no decision about her status for six years.
The absence of effective decision making has blighted the lives of vulnerable people. It has also achieved the opposite, encouraging people without a well-founded fear of persecution. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) talked about the pull factor. I believe that the pull factor remains the absence of a likely swift decision. That has been the position throughout the 1990s, and it remains the case today.
Having allowed the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to degenerate into chaos, the Conservatives introduced the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, applying the most crude and brutal deterrent by removing all forms of subsistence from families who make in-country applications and people who have lost their appeals. The courts rightly determined that families could not be left destitute, triggering extensive dependence on the National Assistance Act 1948 and the Children Act 1989. The Children Act should not be used to provide a system of mass support. It was intended to provide a safety net so that families with children in trauma could be provided for. It was never intended to be the principal means of support for families, particularly in the London boroughs and Kent.
The 1996 Act has left people in situations such as that of a woman in my constituency. She was trapped on the 30th floor of a tower block and, because she lost her benefits after she lost her appeal, the council was unable to move her to alternative accommodation even though her severe post-natal depression led her to threaten to throw herself and her baby out of the window. Her GP and her health visitor documented her as a serious suicide risk, but nothing could be done.
In another case well documented by the Medical Foundation, a young Arabian man, whose mother was beaten to death by Iranian police who were searching for him, slept overnight at the airport after his plane arrived late. His day-old claim for asylum left him without benefits for two years. He is trapped in a trauma-induced mental illness.
The 1996 Act was so fundamentally dreadful that it deserves urgent review. The Conservative party bequeathed us a system that treats asylum seekers contemptuously and inefficiently. The new proposal would replace that disastrous inheritance, which has left

more than 50,000 families in temporary accommodation across London. Poor and cashless, they face a voucher system.
I have made my concern clear to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, particularly about children. There are powerful arguments about the stigmatising effects of vouchers and the restrictions that they impose on people's ability to shop cheaply in markets or charity shops. No one disagrees that people with no genuine claim to asylum are attracted by the fact that there will be no swift decision. Even when the final decision comes, unless there are compassionate grounds to remain, removal is also not swift. That is why people exploit the system.
6 pm
My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary made it clear that he remains committed to the principles of the voucher system. I echo my hon. Friends' welcome for the fact that there has been consultation and consideration of other options. In response to representations about the need for people to have spending money, the cash element was doubled, which was necessary and helpful. I speak as the parent of a small child at a very deprived inner-city primary school who has been asked for £11.50 this week in two separate and, as it happens, perfectly reasonable requests, one of which was for a subscription to the toy library. Such facilities are all part of creating a community in which all children, understandably, want to be involved. The system must include a reasonable amount of spending money if it is to work.
The proposed single payment system is also welcome for people who arrive in this country without so much as a change of clothing, those who do not have adequate clothing to accommodate the changing seasons and weather conditions and, of course, those with growing children, whose demands for clothes and shoes far outstrip any family's ability to keep up and to pay for them. The restoration of the provisions of the Children Act as a safety net is also very welcome. I commend my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for listening to representations about that.
Above all, I welcome the serious commitment to investing in and speeding up the decision-making process in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. That is the absolute key to the system. I welcome the commitment not to place families in a cashless system until the IND has reached the target processing time of two months for an initial decision and four months for an appeal.
Reference has been made to average processing times for the majority of claimants. I again ask my right hon. Friend not to activate the new system until the majority of cases—I suggest at least 90 per cent.—have been processed within the two-month and four-month periods for at least three months. We can then be absolutely confident that the IND is operating at the capacity that the Home Secretary has assured us it will have. The commitments that have been made and the promised investment are extremely welcome, but everybody is justifiably sceptical about the IND, given the years during which we had to endure unacceptable delays.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will also agree that the correct decision to give families priority in processing will mean no more than a marginal delay for single applicants. They include not only people who are highly traumatised,


such as victims of torture, but, importantly, applicants who do not have a genuine case, and they should not be able to draw out their case. Speed is of the essence for families and single people.
In the spirit of tackling child poverty and social exclusion, I seek assurance that the total value of the support package of cash, vouchers and payments in kind, such as utility bills, will not fall below the emergency income support level, properly adjusted for family size, and does not include provision for those items that people on income support would not be expected to buy from their benefit. If that is the case, and decisions are being processed in line with the targets, people will be less fearful that asylum applicants will remain below the poverty line in a largely cashless system for months on end. That was our principal fear.
After years and years of neglect and the introduction of the absolutely appalling Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, change was essential. If we build on the welcome changes made by my right hon. Friend, we can ensure that we shall start to build a new system that offers all applicants justice, dignity and speedy and fair decisions, including those on removal, where necessary, at the end of a failed appeal process. There must be compassion and swift progress towards a fresh start for the desperately vulnerable people who need to be able to get on with rebuilding their lives.

Ms Julie Morgan: I support amendment No. 1, to which I added my signature to those of my colleagues, including that of my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard). The amendment would remove families with children from the voucher system altogether.
I am pleased that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has introduced changes to the Bill in the past few weeks to create a support system that will make it easier for families with children who are seeking asylum to function more normally. I welcome also his clarification about the Children Act 1989. The Bill will be improved by those changes.
I do, however, still have major concerns about the Bill, some of which have been mentioned by other hon. Members. I welcome the increase in cash in hand for asylum seekers' families, but I am concerned about the overall value of the support package. My right hon. Friend says that the package is equivalent to 90 per cent. of the support that other families receive and that 20 per cent. of it consists of payment in kind, such as the provision of electricity, water and other utilities. I require assurance that the support package totals that stated 90 per cent. The Refugee Council is concerned about whether the payment in kind genuinely represents 20 per cent. of the support package. Will my right hon. Friend clarify those costings? I know that there will be further discussion of that later in the proceedings, but we need to make it clear that the package does not cause people to fall below the poverty line. There is enormous concern about families, particularly those with children, among many Labour Members.
Like other hon. Members who have spoken, I am not happy about the voucher scheme being applied to anyone, but the proposal in the amendment would be an acceptable

compromise, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow said, which ensured that families with children do not fall below the poverty line. I seek assurance that the support package for asylum seekers will work on the same basis as that for income support, and that income will not be deducted from payments if, for example, accommodation is furnished. One of my main concerns about the Bill is that it will place families with children below the poverty line.
The Welsh Refugee Council, of which I am a member, has experience of families seeking asylum in Wales. It believes that the voucher system causes unnecessary stress and stigmatism. Wales does not have as much experience of asylum seekers and refugees as other parts of the country, but 800 asylum seekers have settled there, mainly around Cardiff, since 1997. In studies carried out by the Welsh Refugee Council in the Cardiff area, organisations invariably said that the asylum seekers and refugees with whom they work were living on the margins of society and their needs were not being met. They describe them as an invisible minority, who are often socially excluded from the community and who face institutional and personal racism.
Children are particularly burdened because they are often the first to learn the language of the country and to speak English through going to school, so they must often guide their parents through negotiations. I am deeply concerned that we may be placing those children in circumstances where they may be stigmatised and suffer unnecessary stress because they are part of a family who must live on vouchers. We must accept that those children have often been through overwhelming, traumatising experiences and we should be doing our utmost to allow them to integrate into our society with other children in the best way possible. I cannot believe that making their families use a voucher system to meet many of their needs is the best way to achieve that. I am extremely anxious about the stigma that will result. I am therefore very pleased that, only last week, at a conference at which I spoke, the Welsh Refugee Council and Cardiff county council launched a strategy to work with asylum seekers and refugees.
Given that, at the moment, children of asylum seekers receive a 100 per cent. allowance, issues surrounding the value of the proposed support system are very important. A drop to 70, 80 or 90 per cent. of support received by other children would be significant.
I was reassured when my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that he did not intend to introduce the voucher scheme until a certain threshold of applications had been reached. I would like clarification of the six-month period; it should apply to the vast majority of families. What if we get the system up and running but there is a blip, the computer crashes or goodness knows what else happens, and that six-month period becomes much longer? What will happen to the families then? Will they remain on the voucher scheme for a much longer period? Will they be able to use the cash system?
It would have been much easier and simpler, and much more generous and compassionate, to exclude families with children from the proposed system altogether. Although amendment No. 1 is a compromise for many of us, it would be a very good move to accept it. I still hope that such an amendment might be accepted during the passage of the Bill. We all know that the vast majority of asylum seekers are men without children or dependants.


My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary referred to the number to which the proposed provision would apply; it is only a minority.
We should recognise the specific needs of children and women. Many of the women have had traumatic experiences before coming to this country—for example, many have been raped and find it very difficult immediately to talk about such experiences on arriving here. They need access to health care and counselling. I am therefore also very pleased that, in Cardiff, we have a support group for women asylum seekers, in which they can talk about such issues. They cannot be addressed immediately—women need access to cash to get to such meetings, and they need help and support.
The problems of everyday life that families with children experience are bound to be made worse by the provision of vouchers instead of cash. What will be the smallest amount that a voucher will be worth? Problems about not being able to get change from vouchers and having to trek across towns and cities in order to exchange them have been well aired. I know that a commitment has been made to ensure that vouchers can be exchanged in vast numbers of shops, but I cannot believe that such shops will always be accessible to families. What about markets, jumble sales and charity shops—all the places to which we are able to go to acquire the things that make an ordinary life? If one has had traumatic experiences, building such an ordinary life is essential in getting over them, but we are limiting the ways in which families will be able to do so. At the moment in Cardiff, for example, vouchers may be exchanged only at Tesco and at a halal butcher, so great difficulties lie ahead.
6.15 pm
I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for listening to the concerns of his colleagues and others in the House. I am pleased about the changes that he has made, but my fundamental belief is that all children should be treated equally. Children are children, from whatever country, of whatever race, however short a time they may be here and whatever the status of their parents. While they are in this country, they should be treated exactly the same as children who are born here or who already live here. The support system is creating two classes of children because two different systems will operate.
I know that the voucher system has been designed to deter people from coming to this country. I accept that my right hon. Friend's changes have ameliorated the effects on families with children and that he has changed the original proposals concerning the Children Act 1989, but I am still uneasy about the fact that the Act in its entirety will not apply to asylum seekers' children. Breaking up the terms of the Children Act, which was ground-breaking legislation, in such a way is a dangerous precedent.
Before I came to the House, I was an assistant director of Barnardos. I know that, through its work with asylum seekers' children, it is deeply concerned about the effects of the Bill—as are all the major children's charities, including UNICEF. Deep concerns have also been expressed by the Law Society and many other bodies. We have made much progress in developing the Bill over the

past few weeks, but we could do better for families and children who come to this country in deeply traumatising circumstances.

Mr. Gwyn Prosser: On several occasions in Committee and on the Floor of the House, Members have drawn on experiences in their constituencies to highlight points. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) drew an accurate distinction between her experiences in an area where asylum seekers settle and form families, and those in constituencies such as mine—in Kent and other areas—where people come and go. Local experience changes the perception not only of the Member but of the local people.
Many hon. Members have thanked Ministers for the concessions and changes that they have made so far, although some of the thanks has been rather mealy-mouthed. I should like to offer a lonely expression of thanks for the basic elements of the Bill, because they address many of the problems and difficulties encountered by my constituents and in east Kent in past years. I shall mention some of those problems.
Dover district council and Kent county council were suddenly confronted with massive burdens, not just of costs but on resources, which they had never had to meet before. Real crises arose in meeting just basic human demands. The councils coped well and have adapted and set up systems, but they confronted major problems. That is why when I led a delegation from Tory Kent county council to see the Minister, it lobbied very hard for a shift from local authority to central Government spending on asylum seekers. The county council has welcomed some of the changes in the Bill.
Problems of social tension have also arisen in the community—probably the worst problems that we have experienced. They have been caused in part by a small number of extremists—one cannot call them anything other than fascists—from the British National party and the National Front, who have marched in the streets of Dover, held demonstrations, tried, but, thank goodness, not very successfully, to recruit local people and distributed vile literature.
Local people perceive that most of the asylum seekers with whom they have come into contact are not genuinely fleeing oppression and persecution. There are very special reasons for that perception, arising from their recent experience.
Before 1996, we had no asylum seekers in the area; we had never really met them. Lots of people were passing through and going to other areas, but they were not settling in Dover. We had a tiny ethnic minority of less than 0.6 per cent. of the population. I suppose that, as a Welshman, I was part of a certain ethnic minority.
By September 1997, within a single year, for reasons that we know, hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people from the Czech Republic or other parts of eastern Europe, who would fail the criteria for asylum—none met the first interview criteria—settled in the area. Having failed the first interview, they used the present discredited, long-winded appeal system to spend as much time as possible in the area.
Members might remember the infamous documentary film that was made by some Czech film makers. It was filmed in Dover and shown throughout eastern Europe.
It depicted a family of Czech people picnicking on the Dover sea front, drinking red wine and eating French sticks, and generally having a nice time. The documentary explained the ease of access to cash benefits, the means of accessing the system and the ways that the duration of stay in the United Kingdom could be lengthened. That had a definite effect. The film was almost as good as a holiday brochure and it was almost an invitation to have a holiday.
I believe that the message has now got through that east Kent, Thanet and Dover are not part of the prosperous south-east. They are not part of the garden of England. It is not difficult to imagine that someone who lives in a rundown part of Dover—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Gentleman, but I think that I should direct his attention to the precise subject matter of the new clause and the amendments grouped with it, which is support for children. Although I understand some of the general considerations that overhang the debate, I must advise him to try to tailor his remarks to the particular question of support for children.

Mr. Prosser: I am quite satisfied with the changes that have been made in support for children, and I would appreciate the opportunity to address some of the remarks that the Secretary of State made in opening the debate, when he talked about vouchers taking away the attraction—taking away the pull factor.
It is not difficult to imagine that people living in difficult circumstances, in a poor part of Dover, would be resentful if they felt that their new neighbours were taking advantage of the system at their expense.
I do not want to increase the number of myths and lies that are being circulated in Dover, partly by our local newspaper, but it is true that groups of young single male asylum seekers, who are on cash benefits and make their own arrangements for accommodation, crowd into single small houses and, by sharing the rent and by sharing—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must reflect on his words and realise that they do not fall within the terms of the group of amendments before us. He should concentrate his remarks on the type of support for children.

Mr. Prosser: In that case, I shall stand by my support for the concessions and changes in respect of the proportion of cash versus voucher support for children, and perhaps find an opportunity to participate in the later debates.

Ms Abbott: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak on one of the aspects of the Bill that has caused most concern.
We have been assured that, in order to encourage the Home Secretary, we should not fail to congratulate him on the concessions that he has made. As the Home Secretary is not a blushing political ingenu and needs no encouragement, I shall content myself with saying that I appreciate the fact that he has listened to the many arguments that colleagues have made, and that I especially

appreciate the increase in the cash element of the support system because, literally from the day when I saw that Ministers were proposing to give asylum-seeker children 50p a day, it was my strong belief that, whatever the issues of principle, that was unconscionable. I tabled an early-day motion, which many Members felt able to sign. Whatever else happens during scrutiny of the Bill, at least I know that asylum-seeker mothers will have a little more cash to play with each week, and I am grateful for that concession.
There has been much discussion in the newspapers about the Government's climbdown on the system of support, especially in relation to children. I have the advantage over journalists and others who believe that there has been a climbdown in relation to the system of support in relation to children as well because, having served on the Committee, I have read the Bill many times over and I know that—as the Prime Minister was at pains to say when interviewed about the matter on the "Today" programme earlier in the week—there has been no climbdown. The system of support remains fundamentally flawed, including in relation to children.
In an intervention on the Home Secretary, I said that it was wrong in principle that any part of our welfare system should be designed to be a disincentive. The Home Secretary responded that that was quite wrong. All I can do is quote back to the Home Secretary from paragraph 4.20 of his own document "Asylum Seekers' Support", published in March. It says:
The arrangements set out in this paper which are based on the principle of support in kind with a minimal cash provision are expected to have a significant disincentive effect".
That is what the Home Secretary was saying in March, and I believe that that thinking underlies the system of support.
I put it to the Home Secretary again that it must be wrong for any part of our welfare system to be designed to have, in his own words, "a significant disincentive effect" because that is a return to the thinking of the poor law, and it is thinking on welfare rights which this society left behind a century ago.
Colleagues—especially Ministers—have talked about the support system as though it is merely an alternative form of income support. The argument that I have advanced against the support system, and particularly against including children within the scope of the support system, is that it is quite different from income support, as colleagues have said.
First, the judgments that will be made by the new support directorate are entirely subjective. Clause 84 says:
The Secretary of State may provide … support for
persons
who it appears to the Secretary of State may be destitute.
Hon. Friends might think that I am quibbling over words, but anyone who has battled with the social security system over a constituent's rights knows how much social security and welfare administrators can make of the precise wording of the Bill. The Bill offers no rights. It simply says:
The Secretary of State may provide … for
people
who it appears … may be destitute.


The support system gives rise to no sense of entitlement. It depends on a series of subjective judgments, one of which is encapsulated in clause 83, which says that the Secretary of State must take into account when persons apply for support whether there is
support (or assets) which … might reasonably be expected to be, otherwise available to the person"—
not that they are in receipt of that support or those assets, but that there is
support (or assets) which … might reasonably be expected to be, otherwise available".
In my view, that opens a very wide doorway for the assiduous immigration and nationality benefits clerk to deny benefits and support to persons who are currently my constituents.
As for assets, I took care in Committee to question the Minister about what he meant by "assets". I asked him whether he meant that women asylum seekers might be required to sell their jewellery and their rings, and the Minister said that that was exactly what he meant.
We are not discussing a system that parallels the income support system but will simply be administered by different people; we are considering a system that is subjective and discretionary, and which has a series of loopholes into which, I fear, many deserving people may slip.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I am sure that my hon. Friend would not wish to mislead the House. I said various other things, including the fact that we were not seeking to obtain people's wedding rings or their personal jewellery. However, certain communities hold considerable wealth in jewellery and gold. If I remember correctly, I referred to someone whom I had met who had £4,000 in gold with her when she arrived. I said that she certainly should not be regarded as destitute. Perhaps my hon. Friend would wish to qualify what she said.

Ms Abbott: The Minister is aware that he did not rule out people being obliged to sell their jewellery.

Mr. Straw: I cannot let my hon. Friend continue. She knows that under the existing social security arrangements, someone who has £4,000 in gold or jewellery will be required to sell that. Is she suggesting that she or the House has ever suggested that those rules should be changed so that people can transfer their cash wealth into jewellery, keep it on their wrists, and thereby abuse the social security system? Is that what she is proposing? If not, there is no disagreement whatever between what she is saying and what my hon. Friend the Minister said.

Ms Abbott: The fundamental disagreement between us about the Bill centres on the amount of discretion that it gives to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and the new support system. If the Bill stated that a person with assets worth £4,000 or more—or even £3,000 or more, as the income support system stipulates—was not entitled to support, I could not argue with that. However, all the Bill states is that support can be denied to people who have
support (or assets) which … might reasonably be expected to be, otherwise available".

In 12 years of dealing with the social security system, I have seen deserving people denied benefits because of lesser loopholes than that.

Mr. Allan: With reference to the social security parallel, does the hon. Lady recall that the £3,000 asset limit that exists in the social security system was proposed in the Standing Committee and fiercely rejected by the Government, with the clear implication that they intended to go well below the £3,000 limit on assets?

Ms Abbott: Indeed. As I said earlier to the Minister, if the Bill specified the amount of assets that the Government had in mind, no one could argue with that, but the Bill merely refers to
support (or assets) which … might reasonably be expected to be, otherwise available".
We are not dealing with another form of income support simply managed by a different section of Government. We are dealing with a system of support that presupposes that people should turn to their family and community, and under which support will be available only on the basis of a series of subjective judgments. The checks and safeguards built into our income support system, specifying the amount that can be held in assets which would prevent people from having to sell jewellery or assets that have personal or family significance, are not part of the Bill.
The proposed system is not an alternative to income support in its underlying principles or in its value. Colleague after colleague has asked Ministers about the value. I wait with interest to hear what Ministers will say.
Meanwhile, the Home Secretary's document, "Asylum Seekers' Support," which was published in March 1999, helpfully sets out the value of the support system. It states:
The proposed provision is set at 70 per cent.
Even more helpfully, it explains why provision is set at only 70 per cent.—it is
because the interests of the taxpayer must be kept in mind.
The same document contains a table, for the avoidance of doubt about whether people are to be given the equivalent of income support or forced to live below the poverty line. The table shows that a single adult aged 25 or more on income support receives £50.35. Under the Home Secretary's new support system, that person would get £35.25. A couple aged 18 or more on income support gets £79. Under the Home Secretary's support system, the total package in vouchers and cash would be worth £55.30. I could go on.
For much of the debate, we have been bandying about percentages, but when we compare the cash equivalent, including the food vouchers, in the Home Office document to the income support cash equivalent, it is clear how far the support system falls short. Since the document was published, Ministers have started to row back. They argue that the sums do not take into account utilities and so forth, but the Refugee Council said that there is no way that the cost of utilities built into the housing package offered under the support system makes up the difference between the value of that and income support.
It cannot be right that any section of the welfare system should be deliberately designed to be so humiliating to obtain and so substantially below the poverty line. The Home Secretary indicates by his body language that


he does not believe that the support was humiliating to obtain. Fortunately, with the voucher system, we do not have to look into the crystal ball—we can read the book.
Thanks to cuts by previous Governments, there are already refugees and asylum seekers in receipt of vouchers. We know that people queueing up in supermarket queues with vouchers are stigmatised. We know that their children are called voucher children. We know that the system carries a built-in stigma.
I also know that in Hackney or Stoke Newington, the only place where people can cash their vouchers is Tesco in Mare street, which means that they must walk from Stoke Newington to Mare street. Ministers have assured me that, under the new system, vouchers will not be so restrictive, but I would be much happier if we had more details about the running of the system. We know the current problems of the voucher system, and we know from what Ministers have stated in their document that the national voucher system that they propose is designed to be "a significant disincentive".
As I said at the beginning of my remarks, I welcome the fact that at least asylum-seeker mothers will have a little more cash in hand to spend on their children, but it is important that the House does not lose sight of the fact that the overall value of the package has not been raised. Mothers will have a little more cash, but fewer food vouchers.
Let us move away from the vexed question of the value of the system—Ministers are at pains to assure us that what they said in March is no longer true, in the light of insistent representations from colleagues—and consider how the system will work, and whether it will provide the sort of welfare system that we would want for our own families and children.
Let us pause and consider who will administer the system—the people at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. They are the people who have lost passports and whose department in Croydon is in chaos. Ministers are asking the House to contemplate a support system being run by people who cannot manage the system that it is currently in their power to run. Is that designed to inspire confidence in hon. Members?
I have raised the question with Ministers from the outset, and they always ask what I would do. Let me tell them. We had perfectly good manifesto commitments on appeal rights for visitor visas. I would have passed a short Bill to meet the manifesto commitments and spent the intervening time reforming Lunar house in Croydon. Before moving to such a huge, composite Bill and the rickety system of support, through which I am confident many people will fall, I would reform Lunar house and examine the management ethos, the training and the organisational problems in the department. Even if the Bill were not fatally flawed, there would still not be proper system support from the people who are supposed to run it.
This support system is not appropriate for anyone as we approach the millennium, and it is certainly not appropriate for families with children. I could detain the House by discussing many of the precise features of the Bill, which, as anyone who knows anything about how our social security system works knows, set up all types of loopholes through which people can fall.
Ministers say that if they accepted the amendment, 13,000 people with children would have to go back on income support, which would be a terrible burden and abuses would occur. I cannot believe that in what is still one of the richest countries in Europe, as we approach the millennium it is too much politically and economically to offer to some 20,000 asylum-seeker families the same level and type of welfare that is currently available to British citizens.
The support system is wrong in principle. Although I commend the Home Secretary for making concessions, they do not alter the underlying principle of the support system, which is based on subjective judgments and is designed to be a disincentive. Moreover, the system will not work because it will run side by side with a system of forced dispersal. One wonders why Ministers go to the Home Office and repeat the mistakes of their predecessors. Forced dispersal did not work with the Vietnamese or the East African Asians, and ad hoc dispersal by local authorities is not working now. Local authorities send people away from their areas, but the people scramble back because they have hardly any cash and want to be with other people they know and who speak their language. They might also want to be near their mosque.
A system of forced dispersal together with the proposed support system simply will not work. Far from my borough of Hackney being relieved of the burden of supporting asylum seekers, it will have broadly the same population of asylum seekers, but a substantial proportion, having fled from areas to which they have been forced to disperse, will be in our midst with no proper means of support.
Amendment No. 1, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), is excellent and I hope that, even at this late stage, Ministers will accept it. If they cannot, I hope that Members in another place reading this debate will see that the bulk of hon. Members in this House realise the dangers of the support system. Asylum seekers have no one to speak for them, but they look to the Government to make a substantial amendment to the support system to save the Government from themselves.

Mr. Alan Simpson: Although I support amendment No. 1, I wish to pay tribute to the Home Secretary. I hope that my tribute is not regarded as mealy mouthed because my right hon. Friend has been extremely generous with his time, his attention and his willingness to engage in arguments that were at odds with the way in which he has been required to frame the Bill. I only wish that he had had the freedom to approach some of the fundamental problems that are still enshrined in the Bill in a different way, and perhaps within a different time scale.
6.45 pm
I shall set my comments in the context of what is happening outside this place and what has happened in my life. Although Britain has to deal with the problem of increased numbers of refugees and asylum seekers, we would be deceiving ourselves to pretend that Britain is their leading provider of succour and sanctuary. Many of our European colleagues have taken a larger share, at a greater cost, of the responsibilities that are to be borne in accepting refugees. That needs to be acknowledged.
The personal side of this matter is that, before coming to this House, I spent more than a dozen years working in race relations and on anti-racist issues. One of my most profound experiences was when I was working with European anti-racist movements and spent a brief period working in Rostock after the four days of rioting and attacks by neo-Nazi gangs on the blocks of flats on the Lichtenhagen estate that housed refugees and asylum seekers. It was devastating to see how indiscriminate the brutality was to adults and children alike. It was perpetrated against a community that was already vulnerable and traumatised, but that, with the best will in the world, had been left isolated and stigmatised within the estate.
That experience made me extremely cautious of any policy that separated one family from another, or one type of child from another. It is important that we retreat from that prospect whenever we can. I echo the call from my hon. Friend the Member for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan) that if we are genuinely committed to an inclusive society, we must start with the inclusion of all children, irrespective of race, ethnic origin and the status with which they arrived in this country.
It is the principle of the voucher status that we propose to attach to refugee children and their families that troubles me most profoundly. I understand the arguments that underpin that: that introducing a voucher regime will make the regime tougher, have a deterrent effect and help to reduce fraud. However, the more that I have thought those arguments through, the less credible they appear to be.
On deterrence, we must address the question of why people flee in the first place. The last thought in refugees' minds is whether they are fleeing to somewhere with a cash-based or a voucher-based system of support. The overriding reason why people flee is because they are afraid—of persecution, disaster and destitution. It is an insult to the House and to wider society if we sign up to the presumption that lurking hordes of potential refugees are hiding in the forests and on the hillsides of Kosovo, tuned into their radios waiting to hear the benefit uprating from the Secretary of State here. Do we imagine that they will suddenly shout out, "It's not enough. We're not coming", thus sending the Treasury officials into a huddle and making them agree, "Okay. We'll raise it a bit more"? Or that we then wait until they arrive and say, "See? We told you so"? That makes no sense at all.
If one talks to families who have fled here, they tell of the trauma in their family lives and in the communities that they understood and were part of. They tell of how difficult it is to put down roots with which they feel safe. The idea that a voucher system acts as a deterrent is nonsense in terms of the causes of flight.
On fraud, does it help the Government or society to deal with fraud in the benefit system by introducing a separate regime for refugees and asylum seekers that is voucher-driven? It is a retreat from any joined-up thinking process to say that that helps us move in an appropriate direction. There is fraud in the benefit system, but were we to suggest that we put everyone who is currently on benefits on vouchers, we would quickly realise how absurd and unworkable that was. [Interruption.] I am cautioned not to give anyone ideas, but I mentioned that only because I am convinced that we could not possibly be going down such a path.
A voucher system providing less than income support is more likely to increase fraud than to reduce it. We in the House need to remind ourselves that income support levels were calculated and defined as financial survival levels—the breadline. How can we say to people that they have to feed their children while living at 70 or 90 per cent. of the breadline level, and do it legitimately? I do not know how to explain how they are supposed to do that.
We have defined survival level; if we ask people to live on less than that, how will they survive legitimately? The answer is that they probably do not do so. If they are to survive, they may be forced to do so illegitimately. The danger is that they will be pushed to do so by precisely the measures that we propose to introduce to meet the problem of the system being defrauded. It would be a tragedy if we ended up with a regime that ran the risk of criminalising those whom we have first stigmatised.

Mr. Allan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the evidence that we already have of existing fraud in the voucher systems that have been set up under the National Assistance Act 1948? People are trading vouchers on the black market, so they receive less of the value and vouchers circulate in odd ways that were never intended.

Mr. Simpson: I am aware of that and I will come on to it in a moment, but I want to address other aspects of a system that builds in new and additional bureaucratic complications. This will increase the opportunities and invitations to commit fraud. Asking the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to administer such a voucher system seems to be to be a flirtation with another disaster.
I am grateful to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary because they have been directly and personally involved in trying to sort out the mess that is currently the IND. It is, however, bizarre to suggest that the IND should take on the responsibilities involved in running a voucher system. Many Members would settle for a commitment for it to run a "we will answer your letters" system. That is where we are stranded at the moment. Putting a voucher system on top of that chaos could create an awful mess.
People retreat from any system that stigmatises them. There is already enough evidence of such stigmatisation, in the way people are treated when they present vouchers. Various Members have said, "Look, that is not the case. If you go into a supermarket today, there will be people in the queue with vouchers from the supermarket magazine and vouchers from The Sun. One more voucher will not make any difference." However, organisations that support refugee communities could tell hon. Members of the harassment and stigmatisation that refugees currently experience. We ought to be learning the lessons of the downside of this drift into vouchers and be looking for ways of reversing it, rather than looking for ways of extending and entrenching the system.
Vouchers also create subcultures of exclusion, and in those subcultures it will be easier to perpetrate other forms of fraud. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said that there is an illicit trade in vouchers. I hope I do not shock my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, or any other Member, by pointing out that it is easier to forge a voucher than a fiver. There will be those


who feel that the value of their voucher fails to reflect what it takes to feed their family, and some enterprising souls will almost certainly produce their own vouchers.
The Treasury regularly consults monetary indicators such as MO, and the amount of money in circulation, but we are seriously risking the prospect of having to introduce a new monetary measure—V0, the number of vouchers in circulation. If we ask people to live below the poverty line, their responsibility as parents to feed their children probably overrides all else. That will be their priority, and it will drive some into attempting to forge vouchers. If we have blocked off ways of allowing people to survive legitimately, we will not be able to detach ourselves from being responsible for pushing them into having to survive illegitimately.
My fear is that not only will we get into a mess with the administration of the system, but the blame will be carried by the people who are already the principal victims of persecution, fear and flight. It will serve only to reinforce all the stereotypes attached to the position and treatment of refugees and asylum seekers in this society.
I suggest that one of the most obvious abuses of the existing system is not the number of people who band together to share the costs of a house, but the massive exploitation by private landlords of people whom they can overcrowd. We went through that in the period of Rachmanism. This country faced a bigger, one-off crisis when we had to deal with the forced flight of Ugandan Asian refugees. I am old enough to have been around when we were forced to make our own preparations and calculations for dealing with those refugees, and I can tell the House what we were able to do.
A large amount of centrally determined cash was deployed nationally, through housing associations and local authorities, to ensure that we had accommodation available that was capable of receiving the refugees. Those measures, at least in theory, recognised that we could not ask London and the south-east to carry a disproportionate burden when society as a whole should have been taking responsibility for the refugees.
That is the other direction in which we could and should be going. We should strengthen lines of local, social accountability. We should not ask people to carry disproportionate costs or shares of the burden. We should adopt mechanisms that allow local authorities and local communities to play a constructive part in minimising the traumatic upheavals that asylum seekers and refugees have to face.
I am saddened that the Bill almost hangs or falls on a massive error of judgment. We are in danger of pursuing a mechanism that will entrench the stigmatisation of refugees and asylum seekers and of pushing the destitute and the poorest of people into living below the breadline. That is the bottom line of the financial figures that we are being offered. It would inevitably create fears such as those that I encountered in the lives of the people who were attacked in Rostock. I fear that a playground for the far right, and a breeding ground for racist prejudices, may be created, leading to further persecution and isolation of those communities.
We set ourselves benchmarks when we came into office. One of those of which I felt proudest was the commitment to build a genuinely inclusive and

non-discriminatory society. I simply say to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, in friendship, that I do not believe it is possible to achieve this through the proposed voucher system.

7 pm

Ms Oona King: I begin by welcoming some of the concessions that the Government have made on the support arrangements, especially with regard to children. I tabled an amendment in Committee that provided that the support arrangements would not continue if an asylum seeker did not have his claim determined within six months. Another amendment was tabled that provided that the support arrangements would not be introduced until the Government had reached their targets. Amendment No. 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), would provide that the support arrangements should not apply to asylum seekers with children.
The Government's compromise takes into account both those elements: the time that it takes to determine a case, and the removal of families with children from the support arrangements until the Home Office determines claims within its initial target period of two months. That throws up many questions.
What constitutes a target? Is it an average or a mean? How can we ensure that, once the targets are in place, we do not revert to the current lamentable state of affairs in which initial decisions, instead of taking two months, take 20 months? I hope that the Government will succeed: I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be successful. However, in case he is not, I should have liked an assurance that any asylum seeker—not just children—would be protected from being dealt with under a system substantially harsher than the current one until the Government have reached their targets.
I should like to raise an issue that I mentioned in my maiden speech, about which I feel strongly. We are discussing support arrangements for children. It has always struck me as strange that, if a 17-year-old who has been appallingly treated comes to this country, we say how terrible their situation is, whereas if someone is 19, 20 or older, we tend behave as if that did not matter—and, as a result of the present proposals, such people will inevitably be put to the back of the queue while others are fast-tracked. I understand the need for that, but surely the Government could agree not to introduce these support arrangements until they meet their targets. I do not think that that is too much to ask, and I hope that, even at this late stage, the Government will agree to reconsider this matter in the other place.
My concern is that these measures, such as they are, will protect the 10 per cent. of asylum seekers who have dependants, but will do nothing for the 90 per cent. who do not. I have a great problem with that, if we take the 90 per cent. income support level as beneath the poverty line.
I welcome the fact that the Government have significantly increased the cash component, but, notwithstanding that, there are problems relating to the nature of the voucher system. We are asking people to live on less than anyone else in the entire country, but we are preventing them from shopping in the cheapest places. If a mother has to buy some new socks for her child, she can get a pair for about £1.50 in Sainsburys in Whitechapel in my


constituency, where her voucher will be accepted. If she came out of Sainsburys and walked 20 yards across the street to Whitechapel market, she could get a pair of socks for her children for about 40p—but her vouchers will not be accepted there, so they will be worthless.
We are expecting these mothers to look after their children at a cost that we do not inflict on other people in Britain. I hope that Ministers will think about that when they consider the other proposals—including the size of the one-off cash payment to be paid after six months so that parents can provide for their children, and so that utensils which may or may not have been provided, and clothes which may or may not have worn out, and which may or may not have been appropriate for the British climate when people arrived in this country in the first place, can be replaced.
My understanding of what the Home Secretary said is that there will be a one-off payment of approximately £50—that would naturally be in addition—for the six months. That is about £2 per week per asylum seeker, or 30p a day. I hope that that could be at least doubled: I gather that the figure of £100 per person is also under consideration. I should be grateful if the Minister would consider that matter.
I want to direct my remarks to the 90 per cent. income support package. I am grateful that the Government have acknowledged that the support package that they provide must be the equivalent of 90 per cent. of income support. I am delighted that the Government would not force asylum seekers to live on less than that amount, which is already below the poverty line. Given that, could my right hon. Friend give us a breakdown of that package, and explain how it has been worked out? I have been perturbed by some of the calculations used. I must admit that my maths is appalling, but even I can understand that if the estimate of how much it costs the average social security claimant to pay for their utilities is 8 per cent.—which is the figure that the Government use for other social security claimants—the figures do not add up to 90 per cent. Seventy per cent. plus 8 per cent. does not equal 90 per cent.
The Government have said that other items will make up that amount, such as the provision of utensils. Other claimants who are put into privately rented accommodation get utensils anyway. I hope that we will not deal with asylum seekers differently from other claimants.
The speed of the decision making is intrinsically related to the fairness of the system. I hope that the Government will consider the slogan on which we have based this legislation—fairer, faster, firmer—and will consider how to make the system fairer and faster. We should examine the discretionary element of the support arrangements. Some hon. Members have had a disturbing brush with the Home Office because of its officials' idea of discretion in other areas relating to asylum seekers. Asylum Aid referred to a decision stating:
You state that the men drove you to a place one and a half hours away and told you to run before they opened fire on you. The Secretary of State … considers that if the men had intended to kill you they would have done so straight away rather than give you a chance to escape".

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I gently remind the hon. Lady that the subject of the new clause is support for children. She is now straying wide of the mark.

Ms King: Thank you for your advice, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I was trying to establish a firm link between the

need for careful use of a discretion on which asylum seekers' support arrangements depend, and the fact that that discretion has been used very poorly in earlier cases.
While we are discussing the Bill's provision for women and children, let me mention the need for gender guidelines. It has been raised before, and I trust that it will surface again in future discussions.
The key words are "fairer", "faster" and "firmer". We can be fairer only if we are faster. Of course we must protect children first, but please let us not do so at the expense of the 90 per cent. of other asylum seekers who have no dependants. Let us not forget that our duty under the 1951 convention is to protect anyone who seeks asylum here. I trust that this Labour Government will have regard to that when making any further amendments to the Bill.

Mr. Tony Worthington: I, too, support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), and commend the role that he and his colleagues played in Committee.
I wish to register my concern about the introduction of vouchers. I am not speaking on the basis of constituency concerns, although I respect those of my hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser). I consider the position of those who have fled from Sudan, Somalia, Nigeria or Sierra Leone, and ask myself a fundamental question: do I think it right for such people to be compelled to live on 70 per cent. of what is deemed to be the minimum necessary for people who live here? It is as basic as that.
I accept that some people are not genuine refugees and asylum seekers, and I know that we must tackle that problem in areas such as Dover. I also thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for the changes that he has made. As a supporter of the Government, however, I believe that the introduction of vouchers is wrong in human-rights terms, and will backfire on them.
The Government tell us that they have a turnaround target of two months for most asylum decisions—which I do not think is being achieved by any European country at present—and that most appeals will be completed within a further four months. They say that they intend to bring forward the target for families with children to April 2000. They also say—I want to ask the Minister specific questions about this; others have already mentioned it—that the voucher system will not be introduced for families until the Government are satisfied that the targets can be met.
I listened to what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said this afternoon. He is satisfied that those targets can be met, but I am not. What does it mean? The Government are referring not to a time when the targets have been met, but to a time when they are satisfied that they will be met. In any event, if the targets can be met, why is the voucher system necessary? If the situation can be dealt with so quickly and efficiently, we do not need vouchers. Why should we set up an alternative support system?
7.15 pm
I was not a member of the Committee, but I tried to follow its work and to read the evidence submitted to it, and the Government did not make their case that people


were generally coming here for cash. In comparison with other countries, we are not particularly generous. As my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) said, we retain the illusion that we are uniquely generous and welcoming, but nowadays other countries have a better record than ours. I believe that the Government are so concerned about not being taken for a mug by the rogues that they are forgetting their duty to be decent to the genuine.
The Government have made their case that the system they have inherited is a shambles which has not improved over the past two years; but their response to the shambles—I think my hon. Friend the Minister called it a shambles within a shambles—is a strange one. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) pointed out, we are dealing with a system that does not work, and are therefore setting up a parallel organisation run by very much the same people who are not running the existing one. The Government have decided to set up an alternative bureaucracy called the Asylum Support Directorate. "Directorate" is a funny word. I could not understand why they chose it, and thought that the obvious word was "agency"—until it occurred to me that the last time we set up a support agency, it was called the Child Support Agency.
Faced with a department, a management, a staff and an information technology system that need strengthening, we are going to set up an agency alongside that organisation: an alternative bureaucracy employing hundreds. We shall be setting up an alternative Royal Mint. The agency will administer travel expenses, and arrange London accommodation for thousands of asylum seekers. I fear that the bogus will run rings around that, and that the genuine will be caused grief. I ask Ministers to think again. After all, this alternative bureaucracy will not process a single extra application, or speed up the system.
I also think that we should look again at the 70 per cent. income figure. Although more of it will be cash, it will still be only 70 per cent. of what is said to be the minimum. Although I welcome the increase in the cash element, I am struck by the sheer inefficiency of the voucher system. Others have produced parallels; the closest parallel that I can offer is the experience of being in a duty-free shop abroad with a currency that cannot be taken out of the country. People cannot spend their money wisely in such circumstances. I believe that it will be impossible to make the voucher system seem humane. I know of no other country that is using it, and I am concerned about its impact on those who have been deeply damaged by what they have come from.
I am concerned about the evidence given by the UNHCR, the Refugee Council, UNICEF and Amnesty International. That formidable group of organisations has been very critical of what we are doing. I ask the Minister to think again, because I think that the proposals will severely backfire on the Government.

Mr. John McDonnell: I will be brief. We have had an excellent debate, and, in all conscience, I merely want to put my views on record. When my children ask me what I did, I want to be able to show them what has been written down.
Earlier speakers have begun by saying what wonderful concessions have been made, and how well the Home Secretary has behaved. I endorse all that, but I think that we have reached a pretty pass when, after one Minister has consulted and produced some relatively minor concessions, there is dancing within the parliamentary Labour party. We have gained some concessions, but I hope that the clinical analysis undertaken by my hon. Friends the Members for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), for Cardiff, North (Ms Morgan), for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) has caused the Minister to think again, especially about new clause 6. The problem is that when the Home Secretary introduced the debate, he said that the reason why he opposed the amendment was that the provision was central to the Bill. That is why I support the amendment. To be honest, that is why I will vote against the Bill on Third Reading.
People have mentioned the poor law. We need to put the Bill in its historical, reactionary context. It is one of the most outstandingly reactionary, racist Bills of the past two centuries. People need to remember what the poor law was about. People have mentioned it, but they need to remember how it came about. It came about because, in 1795, a group of magistrates in Berkshire, a short way from my constituency—they might still be in my general management committee—decided in all succour that people who were faced with distress should have benefits that were linked to the price of bread.
Idiots and reactionaries such as Malthus then said that that would mean that the working class would start to procreate and that there would be overpopulation, so they introduced the system of the workhouse. As a disincentive to people claiming benefit, they introduced a system where whole families were forced into workhouses to live in poverty—and that included children.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman may have used the word "children" just now, but he is beginning to make a speech that would be more appropriate for Third Reading. We are specifically talking about support for children.

Mr. McDonnell: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The next sentence would have clarified the matter and given you relief.
The whole point of that system was to impoverish people to ensure that they refused to claim benefit; it was an incentive to work as well. The Bill impoverishes children to act as a disincentive to fraudsters—that is the level that we have reached. We are about to put children into poverty to provide a disincentive to people claiming cash benefits.
People have referred to income support as the poverty line. The Government were elected to tackle poverty. The Prime Minister, wonderfully, has set a target of eliminating child poverty not just in this country but throughout the world; the target year is 2015. Now, we are taking a poverty line level that we inherited from the previous Government—which we do not accept and are trying to improve—and forcing children and families to live below that level.
What has been said is clear. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow made the point clearly. He clinically took apart the Minister's argument. There is no


statistical substance—no evidence at all—that cash benefits increase fraud, or are any incentive to claim. We have been through all the figures.
There may be an issue around cash benefits. I do not jest when I say that there may be some ideas. Why do we not apply them elsewhere, so that people can withdraw cash benefits and use them elsewhere in the social security system? There is one place in this city where all cash has been removed and people use a voucher system. It is called the City of London, and it has not in any way eliminated fraud. People in the City are raking it in. What the Government are trying to do in the Bill goes against the grain of everything that we have stood for as a party—everything that we have stood for in trying to look after children in poverty.
If there is fraud, let us investigate it and prosecute. If there are delays in the system, let us speed up the system. That is the way in which to tackle the issue.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) has referred to the position in his constituency. In my constituency, I have Heathrow. The largest number of unaccompanied children coming into the country come into my borough; the largest number come to my constituency. I see some terrible cases. All hon. Members have had such cases. Many may have read about them. Some will have them in their constituency surgeries. Children come here in the most desperate circumstances, having experienced horrors—and what are we going to do with them? Put them into poverty.

Mr. Straw: Let me provide my hon. Friend with complete reassurance. He is talking poignantly about unaccompanied children—and rightly so—but there will be no change in the arrangements applying to unaccompanied children. I give him that absolute assurance.

Mr. McDonnell: I am grateful for that, but, if the Secretary of State had been listening carefully, he would realise that it was one reference of several. Children with families also come into my constituency having had terrible experiences. We are going to put them into poverty. I have families living in horrific bed-and-breakfast accommodation, desperately trying to get their children back into normal life. What are we going to do to them? We are going to give them some cash; otherwise we are going to give them vouchers.
At a meeting in my constituency, I expressed the view that vouchers stigmatise. We already see that happening. When people in a queue produce vouchers, it is not—as the Home Secretary has implied in other meetings—like someone getting out a credit card, or a leaflet, or voucher giving 2p or 3p off. Those vouchers are identifiable. Someone on the till may be a bit racist. They may refuse to accept the voucher for a purchase, or may deliberately underchange that person when he or she tries to give a bit of cash and a bit of voucher. It is happening under the existing system.
People may not think that vouchers stigmatise. As someone said at the meeting to which I have referred, we should remember free school meals. We should remember what it was like then—something that many in the Chamber will have experienced.
I urge the Government to think again about what they are doing with the Bill. They are trying to introduce a fairer, faster system which, I hope, will deal with all the

problems, but their proposals are tarnished by the attack on childhood, the introduction of lower benefit rates for children and the stigmatising voucher system. I deeply regret the fact that we are associating ourselves with such a measure, which I expected from the previous Government, not the present one.

Mr. Corbyn: In such a debate it is hard to add anything new to what has already been said, so I will be brief.
I put on record my appreciation and support for the cause of my hon. Friends the Members for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott), and for the good contributions of my hon. Friends the Members for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) and for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). They are right: many Members have been deeply disturbed by many of the contents of the Bill.
I am pleased to say that the Home Secretary and Minister have been prepared to meet people, to listen, to engage in debate and to discuss—that is obviously welcome. Unfortunately, we are still faced with a fundamental problem: the principle behind the provision on the way in which children are treated.
I have been a Member of Parliament since 1983. I was on the Standing Committee that dealt with the 1986 Social Security Bill. The former Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Major), was then a junior social security Minister. I recall as plainly as yesterday asking him on what basis asylum-seeking families were entitled to only 90 per cent. of income support. I think that that was where the whole notion of an incentive came in—the belief was that, if we gave 90 per cent., there would be a disincentive for asylum seekers to come to this country. Frankly, it was a punishment for asylum seekers and on their children. That punishment has continued.
I took an active part in the debates surrounding the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. The Labour Opposition were rightly appalled at the way in which the then Government sought to remove all benefits from asylum seekers. It was disgusting; it was outrageous. When that happened, an informal network of support grew up. Churches took to sponsoring individuals. Families who had gained settlement here shared their income support, which was only 90 per cent. of what other people received, and sought to look after other children.
Fortunately, there was a court judgment, which meant that, under the National Assistance Act 1948—the very principle of universal benefits behind the welfare state—those families were able to receive some level of support. In my wildest dreams, I never thought that, in this Parliament, we would be introducing a Bill that not only does not end the principle of voucher systems but establishes a whole new system—this time to be called a directorate—to administer a voucher system.
7.30 pm
Children growing up in families on income support do not do very well, and the Prime Minister has been quite right to draw attention to the fact that about one third of all children—perhaps more—grow up in households living only on income support. Those children do badly at school, and in many other ways, because there is not enough money to go around. They have more illness and poverty, and less joy than children in wealthier households.
What on earth is the justification for expecting an asylum-seeking family with two children to exist on about £45 per week less than their counterparts who are receiving full income support? Such an arrangement would be an absolute punishment of the poorest children in the United Kingdom.

Ms Abbott: Ministers have argued that, contrary to what they say in print, the proposals are not meant to serve as a disincentive. They also argue that they are only relieving local authorities of their duties under the National Assistance Act 1948, as local authorities have begged them to do. Clause 103, however, states that the Bill will also remove from local authorities their discretion to provide help—under the Health Services and Public Health Act 1968 and the National Health Service Act 1977—to elderly asylum seekers, so as to prevent illness.
The point about clause 103 is that, whereas Ministers claim that they are removing local authorities' national assistance obligations—because local authorities have asked them to do so—they are not even allowing local authorities to provide discretionary help to elderly asylum seekers or to prevent illness. Providing that help is entirely optional for local authorities.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes an important point, but I do want to stray too far in dealing with it, as that would take us away from the substance of new clause 6. However, the provision would remove the principle of local authorities' right to some discretion. Although I should not mind removal of that right of discretion if it were replaced by a system providing full support for asylum seekers; the only way in which that objective could be achieved would be by allowing asylum seekers the same access to the social security system as they had before implementation of the 1996 Act. If that access were restored, we would resolve the issues raised by discrimination and the incredible cost spent in administering an ineffective and inefficient system.
We inherited from the Conservative Government an expensive, inefficient and nasty system; now, we shall establish a directorate to continue in much the same way. Although I realise that the Government have made some concessions on the amount of cash to be made available, I cannot understand why we are introducing a voucher system.
Every teacher in a classroom knows that it is his or her job to try to educate and bring up that group of children in the best way he or she knows, providing them with security for the future. Every teacher knows that if children come from a very poor background, they might bring with them particular problems.
Often, however, the children of asylum-seeking families have experienced all sorts of other distress. They may have witnessed violence, or have had violence meted out to them. They have may have witnessed great upheaval, and have a sense of insecurity. If those children also know—as my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck) said—that their parents cannot afford the small but so important things in life, such as sweets or a school trip to the fairground, they will have been very cruelly discriminated against.

Children can be very cruel to one another. The system that we are being asked to support today will not only continue that cruelty, but exacerbate it.
In approving the proposals, we shall also be feeding xenophobia directed against asylum seekers. We shall introduce a system that stigmatises people, impoverishes children and costs us all a great deal of money to administer. Nor will it solve the problems that it is intended to solve.
I am with my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington on the issue. It is wrong of the Labour party, which has always campaigned for the principle of universal benefits and a universal welfare state, to be involved in introducing a system that is the antithesis of a universal welfare state—a state in which the community as a whole provides for the needs of everyone, in the expectation that the community as a whole will participate for the greater good. That is what the welfare state is about; today we are walking away from it. What we are doing is wrong.
I hope that the Home Secretary will realise the depth and strength of feeling on the issue, not only among Labour Members but among the community that we represent. I hope that he will also appreciate what is being said by those who attend churches and who work in local government, by teachers and social workers, and by ordinary people who see impoverished children in our city.
There are 47,000 asylum-seeking families in London, which is far more than in any other part of the United Kingdom. Local authorities have done a great deal to do their very best to support those families, just as they supported them after implementation of the 1996 legislation.
All the groups that have been lobbying us on the issue—the Refugee Council, the Medical Foundation for the Care of Victims of Torture, the Children's Society, Oxfam, citizens advice bureaux, and so many others—have also lobbied us before. I do not think that, after the 1997 general election, any of them expected to have to write the same type of letter to Labour Members, offering the same type of advice.
I ask the Home Secretary to reflect on what the Bill is about and on what he is doing, and to give us some encouragement that that system will not continue, and we shall return to a system of universal benefits.

Mr. Coleman: I should like to begin as many of my hon. Friends have done, by warmly welcoming many of the Government amendments. I am especially pleased that the Government have significantly increased the cash element in the support package for asylum seekers.
I should like also to join almost every other Labour Member who has spoken by paying tribute to the sensitive way in which my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary and my hon. Friend the junior Minister have recognised the very real concerns of Labour Members, listened carefully and taken on board many of those concerns. Nevertheless, major concerns remain.
I should like briefly to highlight three reasons—some of which have already been mentioned, but I do not apologise for that—why I support amendment No. 1, which would exempt families with dependent children from the proposed support package. First, however, I pay


tribute to the work done on the Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), both in Committee and with various agencies.
I represent an inner London constituency with a very large number of asylum seekers, many of whom have children, and a significant number of whom have waited for years for their applications to be processed.
My first reason for supporting amendment No. 1 is based on doubts and concerns—which I hope the Home Secretary will deal with today—about the Government's claim that the current support package is equivalent to 90 per cent. of income support. It is a very important point, because the Government have advised us that, added together, the voucher and cash support elements will equal 70 per cent. of income support. Ministers also say that the other elements of the support package will definitely make up the 20 per cent. difference, as the bulk of that is composed of utilities costs.
Last week, I asked the Library to research what percentage of income support a typical family, comprising two adults and two children, would spend on utilities—electricity, gas and water. Although it is not possible to calculate a precise figure, as costs vary between different parts of the country, the Library has told me that no more than 10 per cent. of income support entitlement should be spent on utilities. There is, therefore, a significant discrepancy between that percentage and the one provided by the Government.
One suggestion made to me by Government sources is that an element of the package is the cost of accommodation furnished with items such as saucepans and cutlery. That explanation does not hold water, and I hope that it is not the one that we shall hear later from my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary. Anyone acquainted with the private rented sector in inner London will be well aware that almost no available unfurnished accommodation is remotely affordable for families living on income support and housing benefit. So the reality is that British families living in private sector rented accommodation will inevitably live in furnished accommodation. In other words, UK citizens do not have their income support reduced in any way as a consequence of living in furnished accommodation, and to penalise asylum seekers for providing them with furnished accommodation would be invidious, wrong and certainly open to legal challenge.
We should also not lose sight of the fact that the package already contains an in-built cut in benefit for asylum seekers with children, even if we accept that the Government's figures add up to 90 per cent. of income support entitlement, which I do not believe. Although it is true that asylum seekers have historically received 90 per cent. of income support, asylum seekers' children have always received 100 per cent. of income support. For that reason, I believe that, if the Government refuse to accept the extremely modest amendment No. 1, they should at least be prepared to agree to the demand—made by, among others, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, Oxfam, the Refugee Council of Great Britain and the Children's Society—that the income support entitlement set for the support package must be a minimum of 85 per cent.
The second principle behind my support for the amendment relates to the use of vouchers. Their use is offensive in principle, but I believe that there are special

and particular problems attached to their use by families with children. There is a range of practical reasons why the use of vouchers is inefficient and expensive, some of which have already been mentioned by my hon. Friends. Anyone who has shopped for food will know that there is an inevitable reduction in street spending power entailed by the use of vouchers. I live two streets away from Shepherds Bush market, where it is possible six days a week to buy vegetables, fruit, chicken and other staple dietary requirements at a fraction of the cost at which they can be purchased at the only supermarket in my constituency where vouchers are currently redeemable.
It is true that a £1.10 bus ride away in south Fulham, where vouchers are currently not redeemable, there are cheaper supermarkets where it might be possible, under the new arrangements, to buy such items at prices similar to those offered on the street market—I doubt it, but it might be possible. However, the bus rides to and from those supermarkets will probably cost most of the asylum seekers who live in accommodation on the Shepherds Bush road, where all the bed-and-breakfast hotels are, at least one day's worth of their meagre cash allowance. We are told that the Home Office currently intends that the lowest denomination voucher will be worth 50p, thus obliging the asylum seeker either to spend in multiples of 50p, or to dip into the minimal cash allowance which, even at the increased level, is set at the huge figure of £1.43 per day.
My main objection to the use of vouchers for families with children is that the practice is, in effect, divisive, degrading and, as many of my hon. Friends have said, deeply stigmatising. It is divisive because the non-asylum seeker does not understand vouchers; inevitably, unfounded rumours about scroungers arise and are exploited by deeply unsympathetic and sometimes racist elements in the community to spread disharmony and discrimination. Vouchers are degrading because, in a cashless system, queues form at checkout desks as asylum seekers sign their vouchers: in many cases in my constituency, vouchers are issued only in denominations of £1, so signing them all takes a considerable period of time. In addition, because it is a cashless system and no change is available to voucher users, items have to be changed at the checkout because the total bill does not add up to a round figure that can be met by vouchers.
Finally, the system is stigmatising because a visit to any supermarket where the vouchers are redeemable will, time and again, provide a replay of the scene that I am about to paint. In Hammersmith and Fulham, the supermarket in question is located in a prosperous area where a four-bedroomed house might cost up to £500,000. However, nearby in the Shepherds Bush road are a number of bed-and-breakfast hotels and hostels, some of which are of an extremely unsatisfactory nature. Many asylum seekers have been placed in such accommodation. The head teacher of a local primary school told me the other day of the regular breaktime football kick-about matches that now take place every morning between two teams: the voucher children against the rest.
7.45 pm
As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (Mr. McDonnell) said far more eloquently than I can, we have already returned to the days when poor children are branded as such at school by having to wait in a separate queue to receive their free school meal.


Such an outcome is blatantly contrary to the Government's policy of social inclusion and cannot be justified by any explanations based on so-called deterrents to fraudulent applications.
I am sure that Ministers will understand that those of us with a recent experience of dealing with the Immigration and Nationality Directorate are highly sceptical about its ability to meet the extremely ambitious targets set for dealing for applications. An initial decision at eight weeks, followed by an appeal timetable of a further 16 weeks, is simply not consistent with the IND's recent record. To meet such targets will require a truly spectacular improvement in service delivery. There is a danger that the attempt to meet the targets will result in a deterioration in the quality of the decision making involved.
I was disturbed to learn from a written answer received from the Minister of State on 22 January that, in some cases, a decision to refuse an asylum application would be taken by an officer at administrative officer grade. Administrative officer grade might mean that a full-time member of staff earns about £9,000 a year; such staff are almost certainly inexperienced, with little or no specialist training. What measures do the Government intend to introduce to ensure that there is proper supervision of decision making by appropriately senior trained and experienced staff? If the Government are confident and determined to stand by the targets that they have set for the IND, I refuse to accept that we should continue to insist that families with children have to endure such a humiliating daily experience, even for only a short period of time. That is why I strongly believe that they must be exempted from the package.
My next reason for supporting the amendment relates to the issue of dispersal. As a London Member of Parliament, I am acutely conscious of the huge pressure on temporary accommodation in London and other areas of the south-east, and I recognise that there is a need to relieve that pressure. I am gravely worried that the Government's current support package is doomed to failure, despite their good intentions. I am well aware that the support mechanisms for refugees—especially those with children—in my borough are among the best, if not the best, provided in the United Kingdom. They have emerged slowly, but coherently, over many years as a direct consequence of the commitment of a range of different agencies, including the local authority, the Churches and the voluntary sector.
Those support mechanisms include an accessible and affordable translation service and a first-class free legal aid service. There is also an education service that is ready and able to cope with children from many different backgrounds: one school in my borough has children speaking 146 different languages. There are at least two experienced family projects, which provide a safe place for refugees and their children to meet, to prepare food and to eat together. There are separate Somali refugee, Iraqi refugee and Iranian refugee projects run by dedicated members of those communities who are accountable to and funded by the local authority.
Such support mechanisms are crucial to vulnerable people, especially families with children, many of whom have already been deeply traumatised. However, even if we strip all that away, Hammersmith and Fulham would

still have friends, families and support provided by members of the different ethnic groups who have already settled well in the local community. I know that the Government intend to manage the dispersal process sympathetically and with due regard to such concerns, but I fear that for understandable reasons, the necessary mechanisms, have not yet been put in place. The academic research into the necessary support mechanisms—real research, carried out on the ground—has not been done.
The danger is that, without support, families will not stay in the location where they have been allocated accommodation, and that some will return to London with no money to feed their children and no access to any sort of benefit whatsoever. We know the terrible consequences of such a scenario. Desperate people will be left with little or no option but to consider begging, crime or prostitution to fund their essential needs. I urge the Government to ensure that they have put in place the necessary support mechanisms before the process of dispersal begins so that we avoid the nightmare scenario of large numbers of refugee children begging in our capital city.
The families with dependent children covered by amendment No. 1 account for less than 15 per cent. of asylum seekers. The cost of removing them from the system is not insignificant, but it is certainly not prohibitive for a country of our size and wealth. I urge the Government to reconsider their decision not to support the amendment.

Mr. Jonathan Shaw: I had not intended to speak and I shall make only a few comments, but, like many others, I have been moved by the passionate and eloquent speeches of some of my hon. Friends.
I join other hon. Friends in thanking my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for being prepared to give some concessions and provide a more flexible system for those seeking asylum. I pay particular tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), who has presented his arguments with reason and statesmanship over many weeks. We are grateful to him for that.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser), who is not in his place at the moment, discussed the considerable strain that his community has experienced. Hon. Members may not be aware of the pressure that he has been under and the dignity with which he has tried to find solutions to the current appalling system that has been imposed on Dover. The situation has placed a great strain on the community, which is not used to large influxes of refugees and has had to cope with any number of racist thugs and marches. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his attempts to find solutions rather than behaving like a previous Member of Parliament for the area, who had a similar name to mine. When I arrived in Parliament a couple of years ago and said, "Hello, I'm Shaw from Kent" I was greeted with considerable shock.
I welcome the Government's measures to speed up the system, but I am still very concerned. The jury is still out on the IND. My hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson) said that it did not reply to his letters. I doubt whether letters from asylum seekers are even opened.
The main issues are income support and vouchers. Kent social services did not give a ringing endorsement to the voucher system in its evidence to the Special Standing


Committee. As a former social worker in Kent, and having talked to colleagues, I can tell the House that vouchers are a nightmare. We have to think seriously about whether they are a practical solution. More importantly, as some of my hon. Friends have said eloquently, vouchers will do nothing to foster community relations. They separate people and there will be more of the voucher children whom we have heard about. It does not take a great deal to imagine a mother with two children standing in a shopping queue handing over vouchers with two racist thugs standing next to her. How is she going to use the 24-hour hotline, particularly without any cash to make the call? The system will increase the racial tension in our communities that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover has done so much to try to dispel in his area.
Income support is to be reduced to 70 per cent. for families with children. I have spent years working with families on low incomes. Even those in supportive communities often find it very difficult to make ends meet. They have the flexibility to find the cheapest goods, perhaps by buying second hand or from a boot fair. The voucher system removes that flexibility. Reducing income support payments increases the risk of more begging, more crime and more of the resentment and racism that my hon. Friend the Member for Dover has tried to address.
The amendment is very modest. It affects very few people, but the consequences of not accepting it would be huge. I hope that my right hon. Friend will think again.

Mr. Hilton Dawson: In any consideration of the issue, we have to understand the appalling mess and shameful disgrace that the Government have been bequeathed. It is worse than the legacy of incompetence that they have faced so often. The previous Government had a venal approach to asylum seekers. It was a stupid and ignorant approach to human beings and a wicked disgrace which has demeaned this country. That is the context in which the Government have had to try to put together something embodying humanity, fairness and efficiency.
My constituency has nothing like the scale of distress from asylum seekers that we have heard recounted eloquently by some of my hon. Friends this afternoon, but I have seen families that have fled from another country in fear of their lives and are desperately anxious about the possibility of having to go back to a country in utter turmoil. They have been faced with destitution and incomprehension in this country. Mr. Lukiden Kenyi, who is a gentleman in the full meaning of the word and who is watching this debate, has waited seven years for his asylum application to be dealt with. His life is on hold and he is unable to use his manifold talents. That is part of the appalling legacy that the Government face.
When I saw clause 99, which later became clause 108, I was distressed that the Government were proposing amending the Children Act 1989. If the previous Government, albeit on an all-party basis, did one decent thing—and perhaps they did only one—it was to introduce the Children Act 1989, which makes the best interests of the child paramount. I felt that amending the vital section 17 of that Act was an invitation to local authorities to discriminate between families from this country and asylum-seeking families that approached them for help under that section.
8 pm
The Children Act 1989 applies to all children. Section 17 introduced the vital concept of the entitlement of children in need. Children with disabilities, from families who have difficulty in looking after them, who have been abused or who are at grotesque risk of abuse are entitled to services under that section, which also applies to families in the most demeaning circumstances.
We have heard descriptions of poverty and we should recognise the fact that all families living on social security and on housing benefit are living in poverty. The legacy of the previous Government was that a third of all children in this country were living in poverty. Families who have not been able to manage their incredibly limited money, and who, by misfortune, have run out, come cap in hand to social services departments, typically on a Friday afternoon, to beg a little bit of food to see them over the weekend, and that food is provided because otherwise the children would be in care. The most paltry request that I have made is that asylum-seeking families should be included under section 17 of the Children Act 1989.
Ministers have not only listened to our arguments but have acted on them. That reflects manifold credit on them. They have made changes, and I welcome my right hon. Friend's support for amendment No. 3. I have great difficulties with new clause 6, but I understand that there has been some movement in providing slightly more in cash and less in vouchers. The speeding up of the system is very welcome, as is the commitment to the sympathetic dispersal of people around the country, which should help us to avoid some of the problems that have occurred in places such as Dover. If managed sympathetically, it should help people to establish themselves in communities where their language is known and their culture recognised.
I recognise my right hon. Friend's determination to deal with the huge number of claims that apparently have little merit and to apply the system with humanity, responsibility, efficiency and probity. I have observed the Government's approach to the issue. I absolutely deplore the decision not to give social security to families with children, which is a modest request. Children do not come here of their own volition and I cannot see any justification for not giving their families the full range of benefits. I am terribly sorry that the Government intend to maintain their exception to the United Nations convention on children's rights on immigration and asylum matters.
The Children Act 1989 provides the opportunity to give proper support to children, and its profound significance should be properly recognised. If my right hon. Friend can assure me that new clause 6 will not prevent asylum-seeking families with children from getting the same range of support from social services departments under section 17 as all other families, so that they will not feel the need to beg on the streets or put their children at risk, I am prepared to trust the Government's commitment and Ministers' integrity and responsibility and vote with the Government.
That one vote does not mean very much, but my right hon. Friend should recognise the huge responsibility on his shoulders to produce an improved system that humanely and efficiently meets people's needs, enabling children of asylum seekers to be treated on the same basis


as children from this country. If that happens, and the Children Act 1989 remains unamended, I am prepared give the Government my trust.

Dr. Godman: First, I apologise to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and to other hon. Members, for my absence from this debate for about 40 minutes. I had a meeting with the Minister of State, Northern Ireland Office, my right hon. Friend the Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy). I explained that to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who was the previous occupant of the Chair.
I was only too willing to endorse amendment No. 1, for several reasons. I have always been opposed to voucher systems. I remember the necessitous clothing vouchers that we had in Strathclyde, which stigmatised children among their schoolmates, and the asylum seekers' vouchers will do the same. Can my right hon. Friend give me an assurance that his voucher system is immune from the pernicious activities of loan sharks? I do not know what the experience of my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie (Mr. Worthington) is, but I have had experience in my constituency of loan sharks holding many giro books belonging to social security claimants. I hope that we shall not see something similar with the voucher system. The voucher system is rotten. Vouchers are cumbersome and bureaucratic and, as many of my hon. Friends have said, they stigmadise those who hold them. We are dealing with children here and we must treat them compassionately and sensitively.
I offer my compliments to my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his genuine willingness to listen to the legitimate concerns raised by my hon. Friends, many of whom have much more experience than I do of asylum seekers. Those males in Scotland who have had their applications rejected—I think that they are called persons awaiting deportation—invariably finish up in the prison in my constituency.
But here we are talking about support for children, and the voucher system is not right. The Asylum Support Directorate, as my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie said, will be cumbersome and bureaucratic.
I am also totally opposed to putting families on 70 per cent. of income support. Many of my constituents—too many—are on income support and they are on the breadline now, so those who receive 70 per cent. of income support will be in a much worse position.
The effect of the Home Secretary's measure will be exacerbated by what he seeks to do to the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. I know that my right hon. Friend will have something to say about emergency procedures, but no one knows better than my hon. Friend the Member for Clydebank and Milngavie just how important section 12 of that Act is for children caught up in emergencies when the social security system cannot help them. It is wrong for the House to change that Act.
I, along with my hon. Friend, am proud that it was our old and dear friends, the late Willie Ross and the late George Willis, who put that Act through the House all those years ago, because it has helped many families. We should not deny to the children of refugees the assistance given to Scottish children in need by that wonderful Act.
I also happen to believe that, by this measure, the Home Secretary and his officials bring us into a grey area between the competence of this place vis-a-vis reserved

powers and the devolved powers of the Scottish Parliament with regard to the protection of children. If I were a Member of the Scottish Parliament—I speak as the husband of an MSP—I would be concerned about this measure.
The Social Work (Scotland) Act is exclusive to Scotland. Its aim is to help people in need, especially families. If I were an MSP I would want to take the matter to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council because, with respect, that very fine fellow, my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary—his remit runs throughout the United Kingdom—is coming into Scotland and diminishing that important Act which has helped many children in my constituency and, I have no doubt, in my hon. Friend's constituency and elsewhere in Scotland. I have been given some indication by that fine fellow, my right hon. Friend, that he may have something to say about the 1968 Act as it is affected by the Bill.
However, I have said that I will be brief and I shall try to hold to that promise. I am completely opposed to a voucher system. It is disgraceful that we should say that families will receive 70 per cent. of income support. In terms of helping children, the diminution of the value of section 12 of the 1968 Act is a major mistake and I hope that it can be changed. It will cause anger in Scotland.
Some of the complaints that I have raised have been voiced to me by members of the Scottish Refugee Council and by others in social work departments and in my constituency. I hope that my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary will continue to listen to the legitimate concerns that I have raised in this brief intervention tonight.

Mr. Straw: This has been an important and wide-ranging debate, which has not only covered new clause 6, which clarifies the duties under the Children Act 1989 and ensures that they are effectively and seamlessly transferred to the Asylum Support Directorate in respect of children of asylum seekers, but has ranged much more widely on account of amendment No. 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard), to include the whole principle of cash versus vouchers.
In the course of the debate I have been asked many questions. I apologise if I am unable to answer all of them, but I am ready to accept interventions, and I shall ensure that answers are given in writing.
As it turned out, the heart of the debate concerned the issue of cash versus vouchers for families. To pick up the easiest questions, my hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde (Dr. Godman), asked whether the vouchers would be immune from loan sharks. I was expecting him then to buttress his argument in favour of the social security cash system against—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I appreciate that the right hon. Gentleman is seeking to answer many questions from his own Back Benchers, but he must address the Chair.

Mr. Straw: I now turn out to be a recidivist, as I committed the same offence last night. I shall accept that as a final warning and hope to amend my ways.
I was rather expecting my hon. Friend to come up with an argument in support of his that cash was better than vouchers. But—if I may tease him with this—his point


supports our argument rather than his. His point was that as, at the moment, loan sharks ask for social security benefit books—an entirely cash-based system—as security against a loan, what would happen with vouchers? The imagination of loan sharks knows few bounds, but precisely because vouchers will not be freely negotiable—they will be redeemable only by those who properly receive them—the opportunity for them to be used as security for loan sharks should be greatly diminished.
My hon. Friend also asked about section 12 of the Social Work (Scotland) Act 1968. As I explained to him in a note, we intend to move amendments in the other place, consistent with those in new clause 6 in respect of the Children Act for England and Wales, to ensure that similar responsibilities are seamlessly transferred.
As to whether that is a reserved or devolved area, it is a reserved area; there is no question about that. There are bound to be some reserved areas. After all, this is the United Kingdom Parliament and I have no need to remind my hon. Friend, as a supporter of the Union, of the section within the Scotland Act 1998 which acknowledges the sovereignty of this Parliament. Of course, many reserved areas will involve co-operation with devolved bodies, including Scottish local authorities. We shall deal with that matter in a sensible way, and discussions are already in hand with the First Minister in Scotland.
My hon. Friend the Member for Greenock and Inverclyde also asked about emergency arrangements. I can assure him absolutely that they will be in place. It is not part of our policy to see children or families destitute on the streets. For the most part, emergency arrangements will be agreed with local social service departments to provide 24-hour cover to deal with the problems that concern my hon. Friend.

Rev. Martin Smyth: I thank the Home Secretary for giving way, and I apologise that pressure of time has meant that I have not attended the entire debate. Is the Home Secretary aware that the chairman of the Human Rights Commission in Northern Ireland has written a letter—I am not yet sure whether it has been sent to the right hon. Gentleman or to the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland—pointing out some of the anomalies that will cause problems in the courts in Northern Ireland?
I recognise that this is a reserved matter, but the measure must operate alongside Northern Ireland human rights legislation, which gives people equal rights and allows them to take the Home Secretary to court. Is the right hon. Gentleman prepared to reconsider the matter and perhaps table amendments in the other place?

Mr. Straw: I was not specifically aware of the letter to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but I shall make myself aware of it and ensure that he is given a reply. If amendments in the other place are necessary they will be tabled, but I do not want to anticipate decisions that I may make in the light of consideration of the letter.
I detect general approbation in the Chamber for the changes that we propose in new clause 6. They will make it absolutely clear that the benefits for children of the Children Act will not be lost if an asylum seeker and his or her family becomes the responsibility of the Asylum Support Directorate, but instead will be transferred from the relevant local authority social services department to that directorate.
To pick up a point raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), if it should happen that the Secretary of State refuses to take responsibility for an asylum seeker, that person would automatically revert to being the responsibility of the local authority's social services department—unless the refusal was not made by the Asylum Support Directorate but was a wilful refusal of a reasonable offer of support by the asylum seeker.
However, even in those rare circumstances in which a person refuses an offer that is considered to be reasonable and a reasonable discharge of the Secretary of State's duty, the children would become the responsibility of the relevant social services department. The adult who refuses such an offer, I am sorry to say, would have to look to his laurels as, under our homelessness legislation, would any United Kingdom citizen who wilfully refused an offer of accommodation.

Mr. Clappison: The children would be taken into care.

Mr. Straw: That would, of course, be the ultimate decision that the social services department might have to make—as it would in respect of any other child considered to be at risk under the provisions of the Children Act.
That connects with the point that I want to make to reassure my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre (Mr. Dawson), in particular. The only duties under the Children Act being transferred from the local authority social services department to the Asylum Support Directorate at the Home Office are those in respect of accommodation and essential living needs. The local social services department's much wider duty in respect of the welfare of children remains continuous and is unaffected by new clause 6 or by any other measure in the Bill.

Mr. Clappison: Is the Home Secretary aware that the same points were made in Committee in defence of the original clause 99—now clause 108—by the Under-Secretary? Is he aware also that children's organisations such as the UK committee of UNICEF have looked at new clause 6? It stated:
We remain of the view that it is inappropriate for asylum-seeking families with children to be excluded from obtaining accommodation".
The same concerns exist now as existed about the original clause 99.

Mr. Straw: I am sorry to say that the hon. Gentleman, uncharacteristically, has missed the point. There is no dubiety about the fact that, under new clause 6, the responsibility on a local authority to provide what amount to the Children Act provisions—accommodation and essential living needs in respect of children in need—is transferring from the social services department to the Asylum Support Directorate. The concern expressed by my hon. Friends about what started off as clause 99 was that the local authorities were being relieved of their duty under the Children Act in respect of asylum seekers' children, but that no corresponding duty was being placed on the Secretary of State and the Asylum Support Directorate.
We have rectified that. The answers given by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary and me about the welfare of children other than in respect of accommodation and


essential living needs are the same, because that duty of welfare will remain with the local authority social services department. I hope that that explains the matter.

Mr. Clappison: The Home Secretary said earlier that the local authority would still be able to care for a child who has fallen through the safety net, but the point is that it would not be able to care for that child under section 17 of the Children Act. The same points were made in Committee by the Under-Secretary, and the Government have not moved from that. The Government are taking away local authorities' section 17 responsibilities, which are intended as a safety net.

Mr. Straw: I do not want to labour a point that I have explained three or four times. I am sure that most hon. Members in the Chamber understand it. The difference between new clause 6 and what began as clause 99 is that there is now a very clear duty imposed on the Secretary of State in respect of the obligations to provide accommodation and essential living needs that otherwise rest with a local authority's social services department. That is absolutely clear.
Moreover, I listened carefully to the remarks of the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), but I was no clearer at the end of them whether he was supporting the arrangements for a national system of support for asylum seekers, or opposing it. It is also evident that he has received no assistance from any other Conservative Members. I do not recall one speaking either in his favour or against him, and for a large part of the debate he was alone on the Conservative Benches, apart from the occasional Whip.

Mr. Clappison: Will the Home Secretary give way?

Mr. Straw: Of course I will, if the hon. Gentleman will relieve our darkness and say whether he supports the arrangements in principle.

Mr. Clappison: The Under-Secretary will confirm that we supported them in Committee. This debate is not about the arrangements, although I can understand why the Home Secretary wants to get on to that subject. It is about protecting children. We are worried about whether new clause 6 goes far enough to protect children and remedy the defects of the original clause 99. I do not think that the Home Secretary has gone far enough yet.

Mr. Straw: I look forward to the Conservative amendments that will be tabled in the other place, but it is interesting that the hon. Gentleman's concern is not widely shared in the rest of the Conservative party.

Mr. Clappison: That is a cheap remark.

Mr. Straw: I think that it is entirely fair to point out that no other Conservative Member was present while such an important measure was being debated.

Mr. Dawson: Does my right hon. Friend acknowledge that section 17 of the Children Act does not meet the accommodation and financial support needs of anyone in

this country? The spectre of children begging in the street has been raised. If families were reduced to such levels of destitution, even if they were being supported by the Asylum Support Directorate, will my right hon. Friend assure me that they would therefore be entitled to assessment under section 17 of the Children Act?

Mr. Straw: I can reassure my hon. Friend on that point, as my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary says that no asylum speaker has been found begging in those circumstances. I appreciate the spectre of concern, and that my hon. Friend the Member for Lancaster and Wyre has great expertise as one professionally responsible for implementing the principles of the Children Act 1989. However, the purpose of the Bill, the Asylum Support Directorate and the mixture of vouchers and cash is to ensure that no child and no family are destitute while an application for asylum is being dealt with.
The arrangements continue to apply to families even after applications for asylum have been dealt with, rejected, rejected again on appeal, and rejected by the divisional court or the High Court. They still apply when the family is waiting for removal, until those refused asylum or exceptional leave to remain exit the country. Those given asylum or exceptional leave to remain switch swiftly to the cash benefit arrangements that apply to any citizen or individual with normal residence in the UK.
Amendment No. 1, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow, goes to the heart of one side of the argument about whether we should have a mixed system of cash and vouchers or stick, at least for some asylum seekers, to cash alone. Some people who have heard the debate might take from it two errors. First, they may believe that asylum seekers receive social security benefits. As my hon. Friend knows, that is not the case. A good half of asylum seekers who apply in-country have no entitlement to social security benefits, but are entitled under the Children Act 1989 or the National Assistance Act 1948 to benefits in kind if they are single or to a mixture of benefits in kind and cash if they are a family.
Secondly, and more importantly, some people may fall into the error of thinking that everyone who applies for asylum will have his or her application recognised as genuine and well-founded under the 1951 convention or the ECHR and be given refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. The UK's record is extremely good. The hon. Member for Hallam cannot have it both ways. The courts and the over-slated Immigration and Nationality Directorate have interpreted our obligations under the 1951 convention more widely than has been the case in many other countries. I want the proud tradition of this country to continue when asylum seekers meet convention criteria or the criteria set out in article 3 of the ECHR, as it has for the 4,000 refugees admitted from Kosovo.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) and others mentioned incentives and disincentives. On our generous interpretation of our obligations under the 1951 convention, about 30 per cent. of the 40,000 who apply for asylum are recognised as refugees or given exceptional leave to remain, and 70 per cent. are not. The blunt truth is that a very high proportion of the 70 per cent. are wholly abusive claimants.
My hon. Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser) mentioned advertisements in Czech newspapers—we are not talking about Somalia, from which 98 per cent. of those who apply are taken in as refugees as quickly as possible—detailing the availability of benefits in the UK and offering arrangements to travel here through criminal organisations that traffic in humankind. That stark reality stares us in the face.

Mr. Clappison: Before the Home Secretary concludes his remarks, will he return to the unfortunate point of children being taken into care? Is he content that children should be taken into care under the circumstances that he has described, and that section 17 powers will not be available to local authorities to prevent children being taken into care? Does he know that when the Children Act was being debated a member of Labour's Front-Bench team said:
A child should not find himself in care as a direct result of homelessness."—[Official Report, Standing Committee B, 18 May 1989; c. 137.]
His own Front-Bench team wanted section 17 to allow children to be taken into care.

Mr. Straw: The duty on a local authority to consider the welfare of a child arises irrespective of background circumstances. No matter whether the child is an asylum seeker, or the child of a Conservative Member, or has some other grave impediment, that duty applies. I have made the point over and over to the hon. Gentleman that that duty is not affected by whether the child is an asylum seeker. If a child is at risk or lacks parental support, the local authority has a duty to consider whether to take the child into care. That duty is unaffected by the Bill.
I was dealing with the argument about vouchers versus cash. One part of the reality with which we must deal is that 30 per cent. of those who apply—9,000 people last year—were acknowledged as people fleeing persecution or otherwise facing serious danger. Those people were admitted to the UK and given refugee status or exceptional leave to remain. However, more than 20,000 people had no such claim and entered the UK abusively or were already here. Those people came with the idea of gaining benefits or some other economic advantage. They entered the country unlawfully, not on grounds covered by the convention, or, having got here, they sought to evade immigration control and the provisions of their temporary permits by applying for asylum. Every hon. Member who has an immigration case load knows that such abusive asylum claimants are on the increase.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Straw: In a moment. [Interruption.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. Far too many private conversations are being conducted in the Chamber. Conversations should take place outside.

Mr. Straw: I have received deputations from the Chinese community and letters from leaders of the Asian community calling for such abuse to be brought under control.
Points have been made about the incentive of cash benefits in the system.

Mr. Allan: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: I have already given way to the hon. Gentleman a couple of times, so I shall now give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Dr. Jones), as I said I would.

Dr. Jones: I am concerned that my right hon. Friend seems to be saying that, because people abuse the system, it is all right to make genuine refugees and asylum seekers suffer by imposing a voucher system, even though he has not addressed the arguments about whether that system deters bogus claimants at all. Will he please respond to that and also to the point, on which there is agreement, that the way to deter bogus claimants is speedily to assess their cases and to set up an effective gateway for asylum seekers?

Mr. Straw: My hon. Friend anticipated the point that I was about to make. She will know—this matter is generally kept private—that I have a close relationship with my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South (Mr. Simpson). I was writing a note to say that a genuine claimant fleeing persecution in his own country would have no interest in whether the support available in this country would be supplied in the form of cash benefits or vouchers. Uncannily, as I was writing that down, I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, South make that point.
It is, of course, true that anybody fleeing persecution such as that in Kosovo, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq and many other countries has no interest whatever in whether the support available to them in a safe country such as United Kingdom is supplied as a mixture of cash, vouchers and payment in kind, such as the provision of accommodation, or as cash only, as in our social security system. That is why I say to my hon. Friends that, as long as we get right the level of support—which I accept is their next concern—there is no way in which the provision of that mixed system instead of social security benefits will deter genuine asylum seekers who are fleeing persecution in their country from coming here and availing themselves of their rights under the 1951 convention.
We strongly believe, however, that the availability of cash benefits provides an incentive to come here for people who are not genuine claimants and who wish to enter this country not because they are fleeing persecution but because they want to claim those benefits. It is impossible to look down the list of countries from which we now accept many thousands of asylum seeker applications and not come to that conclusion.
Large numbers of applicants come from eastern European countries, where there are no longer any human rights abuses. Perhaps just three or four people out of the thousands who come here from those countries have ever been given asylum status. I therefore say to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, who said that the cash and voucher system will be a disincentive to genuine claimants, that that is simply not the case. I rely very strongly on the agreement


between my hon. Friend and myself on that point, which is that the system is intended to be a disincentive to fraudulent and abusive claimants.

Ms Abbott: rose—

Audrey Wise: rose—

Mr. Straw: I shall give way first to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington and then to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston (Audrey Wise).

Ms Abbott: I never said that the voucher system would be a disincentive to genuine refugees under the Geneva convention. I said that it is designed to be a disincentive across the board. I have spent many hundreds of hours—in Committee, on the Floor of the House and in private meetings—listening to Ministers talking about economic migrants and non-Geneva convention asylum claimants. Ministers harp on about the pull factor of benefits, but they entirely discount and never mention the tremendous push factors behind those waves of economic refugees. If Ministers were serious about checking those waves of refugees—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady knows that interventions should be brief.

Mr. Straw: Of course I understand the push factors. I have never sought to criticise individuals who seek a better life here, but the natural, logical conclusion of my hon. Friend's argument—if she pursues it, and I do not think that she will—is that we should have no immigration control. Of course there are push factors. People who seek to come to Britain, including those from eastern European countries, want, on the whole, to better themselves. I understand that entirely; that is one of the reasons why, sadly, in a rather unequal world, we must have a degree of immigration control.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Straw: I promised to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Preston.

Audrey Wise: There seems to be an uncomfortable element of trial by ordeal in what my right hon. Friend is saying. We are not saying that the system is a deterrent to genuine asylum seekers. He is not answering the question why genuine asylum seekers should be put through more suffering. As well as trial by ordeal, there is an element of pre-judgment. All asylum seekers, including the genuine ones, will suffer because some are not genuine or do not qualify—but we do not know which ones they will be, do we? Will he remove this rather nasty trial by ordeal and punishment?

Mr. Straw: I think that we are reaching a degree of consensus—[Interruption.] One understands Opposition Members wishing to laugh about this issue. It is

fascinating that the House has filled up considering that, for many hours of this debate, the hon. Member for Hertsmere was alone on the Opposition Benches.
There is a consensus in recognition that a mixed system of vouchers and cash, which we are intending to provide, will not of itself act as a disincentive to genuine claimants. My hon. Friend the Member for Preston suggested by implication that the nature of vouchers and the overall level of the package will penalise genuine claimants, the other points that I have made notwithstanding.

Mr. Allan: I want to tease the Home Secretary to put something on the record. He went from one extreme to the other by saying that all asylum seekers' claims are founded, and then that 70 per cent. are unfounded, and seemed to imply that they were all the type to respond to television advertisements and were setting out to be deliberately abusive. That is a dangerous characterisation, and I do not think that he has the evidence to support it. Some asylum seekers will be cynical abusers, but many others are sad and desperate people whose claims simply do not meet the 1951 convention criteria.

Mr. Straw: Some people from some countries are of course genuine applicants but, none the less, cannot meet convention criteria. I can think of someone in my constituency whose fear was unquestionably genuine but whose claim did not meet convention criteria. As it happened, when he returned to Kenya, he did not run in to any of the problems that he had anticipated. I can think of scores of cases from my constituency—as can my hon. Friends from their constituencies—of people who have made up the application from top to bottom. In one case in my constituency surgery only last Friday, I discovered after some questioning that this chap who had submitted an asylum application had paid an unofficial immigration adviser £5,500 to make it up. I am afraid that such ripping off of people is all too typical.
One of the uncontroversial points—at least on the Government Benches—is that we should take proper control of such unscrupulous immigration advisers. Had the Conservatives done so in response to the amendments that we tabled to the Asylum and Immigration Bill, such exploitation would not be going on.
If the hon. Member for Hallam looks down the list of countries from which some thousands of asylum applicants are coming, and notes that fewer than 1 per cent. of them—in some cases 0 per cent.—are given either exceptional leave to remain or refugee status, he is bound to conclude, as everyone who has any experience of these matters does, that most of them come to this country without any basis for a claim and are often facilitated by criminals who are involved in the trafficking of human beings.
Having dealt with some of the issues of principle, let me consider the issue raised by many of my hon. Friends concerning whether we should move to this system of vouchers. As I have sought to explain, the main reason for the change—there has never been any dubiety about the use of a system of vouchers with some cash—is to reduce the incentive among abusive claimants to exploit the system.
Another reason for moving to the new system is that the locally based arrangements are not working. I listened to my hon. Friends speaking about the current


arrangements; my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith and Fulham (Mr. Coleman), a former leader of Hammersmith and Fulham council, acknowledged that many London boroughs were doing very good work with asylum seekers, but, strikingly, representatives of those very London boroughs have been to see me and the Under-Secretary to plead with us to end the locally based system because of the pressure on individual London boroughs.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Straw: In a moment.
If that locally based system is to be ended, there must be a national system, and if there is to be a national system, there must be arrangements by which the pressure on the local areas is relieved, and that means that there must be some system of national dispersal. However, as was repeatedly explained in the Special Standing Committee, it will be a sensible dispersal. People will not be scattered to the four corners of the United Kingdom, to areas with which they have no connection. We propose to develop relevant clusters.
I can testify that in many areas outside London there are well-settled ethnic minority communities—I think of my constituency, where there is a small Bosnian Muslim one. Because of that, we are taking some people from Kosovo. The same arrangements and connections can apply under the Asylum Support Directorate arrangements, and they will, because it is not in the interests of the Home Office that we should introduce dispersal arrangements that do not work and that lead to a drift back to London.

Mrs. Gorman: I came into the Chamber rather late, but I have been following the debate on the monitor. I notice that the Home Secretary has said that he has not received a great deal of support for vouchers. I should like him to know that, in contrast with the difficulty that some of his hon. Friends are creating for him, I certainly—and, I am sure, many of my colleagues and a lot of my constituents—support the voucher system because it helps to reduce many forms of abuse, including the supply of money to pay some of the bogus people who give advice, a practice which his hon. Friends seem to support.

Mr. Straw: I am very pleased that I gave way. In my situation, one treasures support from whatever quarter it comes.
On the value of the—

Mr. Gapes: Will my right hon. Friend allow me to intervene? He knows that I represent a London constituency in which there are many Somali refugees. I support a dispersal policy, but I am worried about what might happen if people who are moved far from London choose to leave the accommodation provided by the new system and return to the London boroughs where they have relatives, before their cases have been determined. I should be grateful for my right hon. Friend's assurance that, if there is any sign that that is happening, measures

will be taken to ensure that London local authorities get support if they are faced with increasing pressures despite the new system.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That intervention was too long.

Mr. Straw: Let me say two things to my hon. Friend—if I can remember what they are. First, if someone was provided with accommodation somewhere in the north-west, where there was a settled Somali community, but decided of his own volition to leave that accommodation and move back to Ilford to stay with friends and relatives, he would still be able to claim the essential living needs part of the asylum support that we are providing. He would therefore receive his cash and vouchers, but his accommodation costs would not be paid. Perhaps the point has not been brought out strongly enough. That person would get that element in any event. As I keep saying to my hon. Friends, no part of the package will leave people destitute. If they chose to live with their relatives, they would get living support, but not accommodation.
Secondly, in extreme circumstances such as my hon. Friend describes, there are reserve powers in the Bill that would have to be used. I do not anticipate that they would need to be used, but we are trying to anticipate every eventuality.
I shall deal first with whether the vouchers and cash will be comparable, then with how vouchers can be used and the target for families. As my hon. Friends are aware and as the Special Standing Committee discussed at some length, the aim of the support package is that it should be comparable to what is currently received by families who are on a mixture of social security and housing benefit, or families who are in receipt of benefits in kind from a local authority.
I understand the concern of many of my hon. Friends about support for children and about the fact that families can build up expenses for renewals, which would not have been accommodated under the original proposals. For that reason, we are making provision for what amount to single discretionary payments every six months. By the way, to those who say that that involves no additional expenditure, may I point out that it does involve additional expenditure and, in my view, it is right that it should, because we had not recognised the need at the beginning.
There is not time to go into detail on the calculations now. We are providing full accommodation costs, whatever they are. The accommodation is also being provided in kind—we are providing not only pots and pans, but bed linen, which is not provided typically in furnished accommodation, still less in unfurnished accommodation—and we are paying for utilities. Broadly, the support that we are providing will be equivalent to the 90 per cent. of income support that is otherwise available to asylum seekers.
I draw the attention of my hon. Friends to the fact that even if someone is on cash benefits and is paid income support and housing benefit, the housing benefit is paid only at the average of the rent available in that sector of accommodation in that area. That can mean that some asylum seekers pay above the level of the housing benefit that they receive.
We have examined the figures carefully, and I accept also that for families with three or more children, the support arrangements do not meet the 90 per cent. level.


We are studying the calculations with great care. I give an undertaking to my hon. Friends and to the House that I hope that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State in the other place will be able to deal with these matters to their satisfaction when the Bill reaches another place.

Ms Abbott: May I refer to an earlier exchange between him and my hon. Friend the Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes)? My hon. Friend asked whether Somalis who were dispersed a long way from Ilford and came back to Ilford would still get their benefits, and the Home Secretary said yes. However, clause 83 clearly states:
The regulations may also make provision for the suspension or discontinuation of support
under circumstances in which there has been
cessation of residence … in accommodation provided".
Can the Home Secretary clarify that, as I am sure that he did not intend to mislead the House?

Mr. Straw: Of course the regulations make provision for that, as would any sensible set of regulations. It has always been part of the system that some people who had accommodation sorted out for themselves could be provided with the element of the support package that covered essential living needs. That has always been the case. Of course, if there is a wilful refusal to take accommodation or to accept support in other circumstances, that can be withdrawn.

9 pm

Ms Oona King: May I welcome again the confirmation that the package will broadly represent 90 per cent of current income support? Will my right hon. Friend confirm that if it does not, he will make good that difference?

Mr. Straw: I express my good intentions, because this is a matter to discuss with colleagues as well, but, as I keep saying, it is no part of our purpose to leave the children of asylum seekers short, whether ultimately the application, which is never made by children, is well-founded or not. I hope that my hon. Friends recognise that we continue to examine the calculations and the level of support with great care.
To give further reassurance to my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington, may I say that provided that an individual applicant is still at his registered address, which need not be the accommodation provided but may be another address at which he has registered, he will continue to receive vouchers under the support arrangements.
My hon. Friend went on at length about jewellery and suggested that asylum seekers would be treated less favourably under the new arrangement than people under current the cash benefit arrangement. She went on at length about the fact that there is a £3,000 floor, below which someone's capital assets are not taken into account in assessing income support. That is true, except for asylum seekers, for whom there is no floor under the existing social security benefits regulations.
My last point concerns the time that we intend that family applications should take within the new system. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow has made many points, both in the House and in other meetings, about the need for speed in getting family applications through. That point has been made by many other hon. Friends, including my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North (Ms Buck)—[Interruption.] Was that right? Oh well, it is somewhere on the District line, anyway. [Laughter.] When I came into the House there was not a single posh place in the country that we represented, and now every posh station seems to be one of ours, not one of theirs.
We accept that one of the major problems in the system that we inherited is the inordinate delays. My hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North gave details of a case that had been outstanding since 1990. That is absolutely intolerable. That was supposed to have been dealt with by the Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993, but it was not. It was supposed to have been dealt with by the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, but it was not. As my hon. Friend knows, we intend to deal with that.
We believe that speed is one part of the essence of an efficient and effective system. That is why we have set targets to be achieved by April 2001 for most asylum decisions to be made within two months of receipt and for asylum appeals to be dealt with within a further four months. We are determined to achieve those targets. Average waiting times for appeals are already less than four months.
It is important to put on record, too, the fact that when we came into office, and for the two years in which the spending plans were those left to us—[Interruption.] The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) laughs, but, for the first year, the spending plans were those not only left by her Government, but set by her Government because we had already entered the financial year before the election took place. Far from increasing investment in and the staffing of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, the previous Government were cutting it. No wonder the quality of decision making and administration went down.
We are investing an extra £120 million in the IND over the next three years, including £60 million on speeding up case work. Hundreds more staff are being deployed as case workers, including 200 who are being actively recruited now.
Asylum decisions are currently running at 900 a week and, as I have already said, I hope that that provides substantial reassurance to my hon. Friends. We are aiming to deliver initial decisions on new asylum applications from families with children in an average of two months.

Dr. Lynne Jones: Can my right hon. Friend explain exactly what he means when he says that the target is that most initial applications should be dealt with within two months? Many of us on the Government Benches were hoping to have assurances from him that the Government would not introduce the voucher system for families until a very high proportion of asylum seekers were having their applications dealt with within two months. That would mean far more than 50 per cent.

Mr. Straw: The undertaking I am giving is that there will be an average target of two months in which to process a claim. I should also say to my hon. Friend that that does not mean that 51 per cent. of the applications will therefore be accepted; it could easily be the case that 70 per cent. of the applications will be dealt with within that period. We are trying to get the straightforward cases through quickly—as we have been doing with those of Kosovans, for example. The harder cases, the processing of which may last for some time, will skew the average, but the formal undertaking is for the average target of two months to be met. However, I anticipate that many more than 51 per cent. of cases will be decided in that period.

Dr. Jones: rose—

Mr. Straw: If I may, I want to answer directly the point that my hon. Friend has raised. I also want to deal with the point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Regent's Park and Kensington, North, which is, how will I be satisfied, before we introduce that target, that it will be met and what will happen if I believe that we cannot introduce a target? I think that she asked for satisfaction of a 90 per cent. hit rate over three months, but I ask her to accept from me that I cannot offer a mathematical target of such precision.
I also ask my hon. Friend to accept that I will be responsible to the House, and to Members on each side of it, if the system fails to meet the target. I shall set the system running, so, before I press the start button, I shall take a very close and personal interest in whether that target will be met. It will be in nobody's interest, least of all mine, to press the start button to begin the process and then to discover that the applications are routinely not taking two months, but four. A great deal of work is going into that.
For that reason, I also give the subsidiary but very important undertaking that, if we cannot achieve those targets for families with children, and if I am not satisfied that they can be achieved, we will not introduce those applications into the new support arrangements in April 2000. The existing arrangements will continue until we are so satisfied.
I have spoken at considerable length in answering the questions and points that have been raised, with great seriousness, by my hon. Friends and by Liberal Democrat Members. I hope that I have satisfied or, at least, reassured them and assuaged many of their concerns.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 331, Noes 161.

Division No. 209]
[9.8 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barron, Kevin


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Battle, John


Ainger, Nick
Bayley, Hugh


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Beard, Nigel


Alexander, Douglas
Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret


Allen, Graham
Begg, Miss Anne


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Ashton, Joe
Bennett, Andrew F


Atherton, Ms Candy
Benton, Joe


Atkins, Charlotte
Berry, Roger


Barnes, Harry
Best, Harold





Betts, Clive
Efford, Clive


Blackman, Liz
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Blears, Ms Hazel
Ennis, Jeff


Blizzard, Bob
Fisher, Mark


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Borrow, David
Flint, Caroline


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Follett, Barbara


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Bradshaw, Ben
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Foulkes, George


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Fyfe, Maria



Galloway, George


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gapes, Mike


Browne, Desmond
Gardiner, Barry


Buck, Ms Karen
Gerrard, Neil


Burden, Richard
Gibson, Dr Ian


Butler, Mrs Christine
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Cann, Jamie
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)



Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Grocott, Bruce


Chaytor, David
Grogan, John


Church, Ms Judith
Gunnell, John


Clapham, Michael
Hain, Peter


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)


Clark, Dr Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

Hall, Patrick (Bedford)



Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hanson, David


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Healey, John


Clelland, David
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clwyd, Ann
Hepburn, Stephen


Coaker, Vernon
Heppell, John


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hesford, Stephen


Coleman, Iain
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Colman, Tony
Hill, Keith


Connarty, Michael
Hinchliffe, David


Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Corbett, Robin
Hoey, Kate


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy


Corston, Ms Jean
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cousins, Jim
Hope, Phil


Cranston, Ross
Hopkins, Kelvin


Crausby, David
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Howells, Dr Kim


Cummings, John
Hoyle, Lindsay


Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Dalyell, Tam
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Humble, Mrs Joan


Darvill, Keith
Hurst, Alan


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Iddon, Dr Brian


Davidson, Ian
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Dawson, Hilton
Jamieson, David


Dean, Mrs Janet
Jenkins, Brian


Denham, John
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dismore, Andrew
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dobbin, Jim



Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Donohoe, Brian H

Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Drew, David
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Drown, Ms Julia
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Edwards, Huw
Keeble, Ms Sally






Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Primarolo, Dawn


Kelly, Ms Ruth
Prosser, Gwyn


Khabra, Piara S
Purchase, Ken


Kidney, David
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Kilfoyle, Peter
Quinn, Lawrie


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Radice, Giles


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Rammell, Bill


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Laxton, Bob
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lepper, David
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Leslie, Christopher
Rooker, Jeff


Levitt, Tom
Rooney, Terry


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Linton, Martin
Rowlands, Ted


Livingstone, Ken
Roy, Frank


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ruane, Chris


Lock, David
Ruddock, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCabe, Steve
Ryan, Ms Joan


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Sarwar, Mohammad



Savidge, Malcolm


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sawford, Phil


Macdonald, Calum
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonnell, John
Shaw, Jonathan


McFall, John
Sheerman, Barry


McIsaac, Shona
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Mackinlay, Andrew
Short, Rt Hon Clare


McNulty, Tony
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


MacShane, Denis
Skinner, Dennis


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Snape, Peter


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Southworth, Ms Helen


Martlew, Eric
Spellar, John



Meale, Alan
Squire, Ms Rachel


Merron, Gillian
Steinberg, Gerry


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Miller, Andrew
Stinchcombe, Paul


Moffatt, Laura
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Stott, Roger


Moran, Ms Margaret
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Morley, Elliot
Stringer, Graham


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Mountford, Kali
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie



Mudie, George
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Mullin, Chris
Temple-Morris, Peter


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Timms, Stephen


Naysmith, Dr Doug

Tipping, Paddy


Norris, Dan
Touhig, Don


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Truswell, Paul


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Olner, Bill
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


O'Neill, Martin
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Palmer, Dr Nick
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Pearson, Ian
Vaz, Keith


Pendry, Tom
Walley, Ms Joan


Pickthall, Colin
Ward, Ms Claire


Pike, Peter L
Wareing, Robert N


Plaskitt, James
Watts, David


Pond, Chris
White, Brian


Pope, Greg
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Powell, Sir Raymond
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)






Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)
Worthington, Tony


Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Winnick, David



Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wise, Audrey
Mrs. Anne McGuire and


Woolas, Phil
Jane Kennedy.




NOES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Hammond, Philip


Allan, Richard
Harvey, Nick


Amess, David
Hawkins, Nick


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas


Baker, Norman
Horam, John


Baldry, Tony
Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)


Ballard, Jackie
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Beggs, Roy
Hunter, Andrew



Beith, Rt Hon A J
Jack, Rt Hon Michael


Bell, Martin (Tatton)
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Bercow, John
Jenkin, Bernard


Beresford, Sir Paul
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Body, Sir Richard
Keetch, Paul


Boswell, Tim
King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Kirkbride, Miss Julie


Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia
Kirkwood, Archy


Brady, Graham
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Brake, Tom
Lansley, Andrew


Brazier, Julian
Leigh, Edward


Browning, Mrs Angela
Letwin, Oliver


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Lidington, David


Burnett, John
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Burstow, Paul
Livsey, Richard


Butterfill, John
Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)


Cable, Dr Vincent
Llwyd, Elfyn


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Loughton, Tim



Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Cash, William
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Chidgey, David
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Clappison, James
MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Maclean, Rt Hon David



McLoughlin, Patrick


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Madel, Sir David


Collins, Tim
Malins, Humfrey


Cormack, Sir Patrick
Maples, John


Cotter, Brian
Mates, Michael


Cran, James
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Dafis, Cynog
May, Mrs Theresa


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Moore, Michael


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Moss, Malcolm


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Nicholls, Patrick


Day, Stephen
Norman, Archie


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Oaten, Mark


Duncan Smith, Iain
Öpik, Lembit


Evans, Nigel
Ottaway, Richard


Fabricant, Michael
Page, Richard


Fallon, Michael
Paice, James


Feam, Ronnie
Paterson, Owen


Flight, Howard
Pickles, Eric


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Randall, John


Foster, Don (Bath)
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Fox, Dr Liam
Rendel, David


Fraser, Christopher
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Gale, Roger
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Garnier, Edward
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Gibb, Nick
Sanders, Adrian


Gill, Christopher
Sayeed, Jonathan


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Shepherd, Richard


Gray, James
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Green, Damian
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Greenway, John
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Grieve, Dominic
Soames, Nicholas


Hague, Rt Hon William
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Spicer, Sir Michael






Spring, Richard
Walter, Robert


Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John
Waterson, Nigel


Steen, Anthony
Webb, Steve


Streeter, Gary
Wells, Bowen


Stunell, Andrew
Welsh, Andrew


Swayne, Desmond
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Syms Robert
Whittingdale, John


Tapsell, Sir Peter
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Taylor, John M (Solihull)
Willets, David


Taylor, Sir Teddy
Wills, Phil


Thompson, William
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Tonge, Dr Jenny
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Tredinnick, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Tyler, Paul
Tellers for the Noes:


Tyrie, Andrew
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Viggers, Peter
Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. This is a brief point, which was dealt with at length in Committee, on the representations made by the United Kingdom Council for Overseas Student Affairs—representing British further and higher education institutions—on immigration advice and other technical points, and in relation to clauses 69 to 71 in the amended Bill and to clauses 63 to 65 in the unamended Bill. The only amendments tabled on Report directly affecting those clauses were one that was consequential on an earlier new clause, and one that was tabled by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Bedfordshire (Sir N. Lyell). As those amendments are not likely to be debated, our further consideration of the Bill would be assisted if Ministers would supply a letter to UKCOSA on those higher education issues, if such a letter is outstanding.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. The point of order was not a matter for the occupant of the Chair, and was therefore not a point of order. However, Ministers have undoubtedly heard the comments of the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley), and we shall leave it at that.

Mr. Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. We have had a substantial debate on new clause 6, and now have two and a half hours for the Bill's remaining stages. Not many matters other than Government amendments will be dealt with, so if the Minister were able to respond to the point, perhaps outside the Chamber, it would be much appreciated.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. What the Minister does outside the Chamber is entirely a matter for him, but I do not want him to respond to the point here.

New Clause 7

REPEAL OF SECTION 8 OF THE ASYLUM AND IMMIGRATION ACT 1996

'.—Section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 (restrictions on employment) shall cease to have effect.'.—[Mr. Allan.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Allan: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 150, in clause 15, page 11, line 7, leave out Clause 15.
No. 157, in schedule 14, page 141, line 35, column 3, at end insert 'Section 8'.

Mr. Allan: New clause 7 is a straightforward proposal which seeks to repeal section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. The issue was debated at enormous length during the passage of the 1996 Act, when Labour Members expressed great concern about the potential impact of section 8. We have now been able to see how the section operates in practice, and Liberal Democrats believe that those earlier fears have been justified. We also believe that the Government should take this opportunity to honour the clear commitment that they made when in opposition to deal with section 8 and its discriminatory effects on employment prospects.
In Committee, we gave an undertaking to determine whether we could find a formula for revising section 8 that was better than the Government's proposals, so that Ministers would be able to keep to the spirit of section 8—to prevent the illegal employment of people who have no right to work—and to ameliorate its discriminatory effects. After investigating the matter, we—like Ministers—have found no way of substantially changing section 8, leaving us with the fairly straightforward decision whether to repeal it.
I ask Labour Members to read the debates on the 1996 Act, as the decision that we shall have to make today should be based on the precisely the same arguments. We have to determine whether the harm done by section 8—the discrimination against people from other countries in seeking employment—is outweighed by the benefit gained in deterring people from employing others illegally.
I believe that the evidence shows that the harm done by section 8 clearly outweighs any benefit that it brings, and that experience gained since passage of the 1996 Act makes the case for the section's repeal. My primary evidence for repealing the section has been provided by the Commission for Racial Equality and the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, both of which have said that they have received many inquiries suggesting that employers are misapplying section 8, causing discrimination.
The CRE has said that it continues
to receive inquiries that demonstrate widespread misunderstanding and the"—
often inadvertent—
application of unlawful discriminatory practices.
Citizens advice bureaux have given similar examples of individuals who have been on the receiving end of that discrimination, who have told the bureaux about how they were refused jobs by employers who were frightened to employ them because of the provisions of section 8, which could make them liable to pay fines of up to £5,000. Since then, the better regulation task force has clearly set out in its review of anti-discrimination legislation its belief that section 8 should be repealed.
9.30 pm
At the time when the 1996 Act was passed, the Government estimated that the increased costs to employers would total £13.5 million initially and £11.5 million in recurring costs. I should be interested to hear whether the Minister believes that those estimates have been borne out. The Government's proposals, which would impose a code of practice that is designed somehow to ameliorate the effects of section 8, might increase the costs to business. In any case, why should we believe that the new code of practice will be more effective in reducing discrimination than previous guidance issued by the Home Office?
I got the impression from the Minister that the new procedure would work as follows: in order to avoid direct discrimination, if any applicant for a job might conceivably have an immigration status that needs to be checked, the duty will be on the employer to check the immigration status of all applicants for the job. My constituency contains a university, and I know how common it is for foreign nationals to work in universities and apply for jobs in them. However, it would appear that for university employers—this point applies to many multinational and international companies as well—the way forward now is to check the eligibility for work under immigration rules of every applicant to each job. That is a huge burden, which is not outweighed by any potential benefits.
In respect of the benefits that could be attached to section 8, the Government's clear intention has been to send the message to employers that they should not illegally employ those who are not eligible to work. However, since section 8 came into force, there has been only one prosecution under its provisions. The Government have said that there are to be more, but it is clear that section 8 has not been used effectively.
The people we want to catch are the traffickers in human misery—the racketeers and gang masters who bring in people to work in the agricultural sector and other sectors. A more appropriate way in which to deal with them is under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 and, at the start of Report stage, we talked about strengthening the provisions of that Act to deal with such racketeers. I believe that we can take measures to deal with employers that do not involve burdening them with strict liability when they are found guilty of employing people illegally, given that that has been clearly shown to put employers off employing anyone other than obviously British white citizens, whose employment poses no risk to the employer under section 8 of the 1996 Act.
The CRE's verdict on section 8 is absolutely explicit:
There is no evidence that section 8 has proved to be an effective deterrent to illegal working or racketeering. It is likely to have increased the employment costs of good employers, and it has encouraged the unscrupulous to discriminate. For ethnic minority job-seekers it has added to the barriers which they face.
That is a clear indictment from an expert front-line organisation which is responsible for dealing with such matters. I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) will refer to evidence from the CBI and the TUC, which both regularly deal with employment issues on the front line.
The case is clear. Some of the Labour Members present tonight were involved in the debates on the 1996 Act and they will remember the case that was made at that time. It has been proved that section 8 has had a discriminatory effect and there is nothing in the Bill to suggest that we can look forward to a period in which it will not continue to have serious negative effects. The Government should respond positively to the report of the better regulation task force, accept the amendment and repeal section 8. They should concentrate on hitting human traffickers with more appropriate measures, which now carry penalties of up to 10 years' imprisonment, rather than imposing a strict liability on all employers. That only leads employers to discriminate against people, many of whom have been British citizens for years or have a perfect right to work in British companies.

Ms Oona King: I have grave concerns about the implications of section 8. I cannot resolve the irony of a Government with a better race relations record than any before them maintaining section 8. The effects of that policy may be unintentional on the Government's part, but that will not make much difference to my constituents, many of whom may well face direct discrimination as a result of a law that we have a chance to repeal.
The Commission for Racial Equality brought to our attention the example of an employment agency supplying temping staff that refused to accept the national insurance number of a Bangladeshi person and on that basis refused them employment. More than one third of the people in my constituency are of Bangladeshi origin. Research conducted by the University of Cambridge shows that their chance of finding a job is already five times worse than that of a white person, based on an employer receiving two identical CVs, one with a British name and one with a Bangladeshi name. It is a great shame for us not only to do nothing to mitigate that fivefold discrimination, but to encourage employers, particularly unscrupulous ones, to discriminate.
The Government's aim in maintaining the section is to prosecute racketeers and gang masters. None of us would oppose any Government in that aim, but I cannot support the idea of encouraging employers to make checks on people whom they suspect of being unable to fulfil the correct immigration status criteria. As black people, we wear our passports on our faces. Immigrants will not be the only ones to be called to account, although that would be bad enough, because many people who have sought to regularise their stay here have a right to work. Black British citizens will also be affected. I urge the Government to reconsider the policy. I repeat that I am proud to be a member of this governing party, because we have had an excellent race relations record to date, although far more needs to be done.
Section 8 has not achieved its objective. There has been only one prosecution. It has encouraged discrimination and added to the burdens on business. In these days of the third way and encouraging consensus, it is a shame that the Government are continuing with section 8 when the CBI, the TUC and the Federation of Small Businesses are urging them not to do so. I hope that, in this House or in another place, the Government may be able to mitigate the severe consequences of section 8 on members of ethnic minorities.

Miss Ann Widdecombe: I do not intend to speak for long on the new clause, because I do not believe that it is very sensible. However, I am intrigued, because, in opposition, Labour Members promised not to implement that portion of the 1996 Act. Indeed, they inveighed heavily against it, as I well remember, because I was charged with piloting the legislation through Committee.
At that time, Opposition spokesmen claimed that the proposal was iniquitous and that it would place considerable burdens on business. They did not seem much concerned about other burdens that they wanted to impose on business, and indeed have imposed, such as the minimum wage and the working time directive. The Financial Secretary to the Treasury, who was then Opposition spokesman on small businesses, wrote to The Daily Telegraph—she has good reading—saying that the Act would be an imposition on small firms and that it gave them a raw deal.
Are the Government now planning to give such firms a raw deal? In that letter, the hon. Lady calculated that the Act would cost small firms £12 million in the first year alone. Are the Government now saying that that is acceptable, which they denied in opposition, or do they have some plans that we do not know about to give financial relief to small firms?
It was not only before the general election that the Government opposed the measure as an unnecessary burden on business and a deterrent to employing people from ethnic minorities. Since the election, the Government have several times promised that they would not implement section 8. Now they are not only implementing it but adding the further burden of a code of practice. Will they admit that they got it wrong in opposition?
We would have been intrigued to hear about this in the Special Standing Committee, but the Minister was not present when we debated the code of practice in Committee, so this is his first opportunity to comment on it. I might not have been so ungenerous as to point that out had the Home Secretary not made much of the absence of Conservative Back Benchers in the previous debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) was present throughout, and it would have been nice if the Minister could have managed the same.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: To which Committee is the right hon. Lady referring? I was present throughout—and indeed spoke in—the debate on these matters in Committee.

Miss Widdecombe: I am informed by my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere that the Minister was absent for the discussion on the other code of practice, for lorry drivers, so I shall tease him when we debate that.

Mr. O'Brien: The right hon. Lady has accused me of not being present when we debated this very important code of practice and of not being concerned about another code of practice. I spent a lot of time talking to lorry drivers and their organisations and I was present in Committee when we dealt with this code of practice, so perhaps she will be gracious enough to offer me an apology.

Miss Widdecombe: I am afraid that when it comes to the lorry drivers—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I may not be in possession of a roll call of those who were present in Committee, but I am in possession of the rules of the House. We must debate the new clause.

Miss Widdecombe: Perhaps I should return to the new clause, and we can return to the other argument, if necessary, when we discuss lorry drivers.
Since the general election, the Government and the Minister himself have repeated their intention not to implement section 8 of the 1996 Act. The Minister himself has repeated that intention.
9.45 pm
Before the Minister says that I have my facts wrong again, I refer him to the record of the Special Standing Committee. It was pointed out in column 374 that, in opposition, the Government promised to repeal section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, exactly as the Liberals have now asked them to do. But in June 1997—in case anyone needs reminding, that is one month after the Government were elected for the short period that they will enjoy in power—at a conference on the European Year Against Racism, which took place in London, the Minister said that section 8 of that Act would be repealed because it was discriminatory against black and minority ethnic people.
That was the Minister's considered judgment. I assume that, as he was a Minister, it had to be a considered judgment. It could not be one of those off-the-cuff remarks that he might have turned out in opposition. I presume also that official advice backed up that considered judgment. The hon. Gentleman said that section 8 would be repealed because it was, in his judgment, discriminatory against black and minority ethnic people.
At another conference in January 1998, the Minister answered a similar question. He said that the Home Office was undertaking a comprehensive review of immigration policy, and that that was one of the issues that would be considered. This year, he answered another question, and it was then, after all that review and despite all the pontification—there is no other way to describe it—on the evils of section 8, that he said he had decided that it was best after all for section 8 to remain.
I am intrigued. I should like to know why, from a position which was clear when the Conservative Government introduced that measure; to a position that was apparently equally clear immediately after the election when the Minister was responsible for these matters; to now when we come before the House, the hon. Gentleman has decided that section 8 is a good thing.
I am delighted. I welcome any sinner who repenteth. The Minister challenged me just now to give him an apology for confusing an absence with an occasion when he was present. I shall do that. I expect him in return, having now decided to retain section 8, to apologise for all the things of which he accused us.

Ms Abbott: I was one of the members of the Committee which considered the Asylum and Immigration Act. I well


remember speaking at length, along with several colleagues, against section 8 and its discriminatory effects. I do not intend to speak at length today, but I could not let this debate go past without stating that my position then is my position now—section 8 is potentially discriminatory.
I support my hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) in saying that we see in inner London high unemployment, particularly among black and Asian young men, even where they have the same qualifications as their white counterparts. I live with and work among the consequences of those high levels of unemployment among black and Asian young men, and it is my strongly held view that if section 8 contributes even in small measure to a climate in which employers feel that they can discriminate, it should be removed.
There is to be a code of conduct, but, as we discussed in Committee, good employers will abide by such a code and are not causing problems under section 8 anyway, and bad employers will ignore it. It is unfortunate that the Government have reversed what was a well-founded position on the issue.
I see on the Treasury Bench the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department. When he was a Back Bencher, he pursued a long-running campaign about the number of black persons employed by the civil service and their seniority, pointing out, from the statistics that he had gathered, that black and Asian people find it hard to get promotion.
I say again that if section 8 contributes in any way to that situation, we should remove it. We made those arguments in opposition and I do not believe that things have changed. I could not let this debate go past without putting my views on the record.

Dr. Vincent Cable: I wish to say a few words in support of my hon. Friends in connection with the new clause. My normal stamping ground is economic policy. Choices between social improvement and business costs often require a balance to be struck. However, section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 is unusual, in that it inflicts considerable social harm in the form of racial discrimination and, at the same time, imposes costs on business. That is why it has attracted such an unusual coalition of opposition.
The opposition comes from the refugee organisations and the Campaign for Racial Equality, and from both sides of industry. Employer organisations are normally fractious bodies, but they have found an unusual unanimity in their opposition to section 7. They include the Confederation of British Industry, the Institute of Directors, the British Chambers of Commerce, the Institute of Management, the Institute of Personnel and Development and others.
As we have already assimilated the impact of clause 15 as a possible ameliorative step, it will useful to refer to some of those organisations' comments. Last week, having considered the balance of evidence and argument, the CBI said:
Since its introduction over two years ago, there is no evidence that section 8 is an effective deterrent to illegal working or racketeering. Many employers still remain confused as to what is expected of them and its main effect has been to place costly administrative burdens on good employers and increase the likelihood of discrimination against ethnic minorities.


The Trades Union Congress is an interesting and important witness to the debate, as, perhaps more than any other organisation, it is concerned with employees' conditions and the exploitation of workers. In Committee, the Minister rightly paid a good deal of attention to the exploitation of the labour force. However, the TUC, on behalf of the trade union movement, makes it clear that it
is astonished to read … that the Government intend to allow section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 to remain on the statute book.
It argues that
the complexity of the checks required would lead to discrimination by employers against black and ethnic minority citizens.
The hon. Members for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) and for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) know better than I how racial discrimination operates in the labour force. They have probably experienced it themselves and they will be widely familiar with it among their constituents. However, it might be useful to explore how discrimination appears as a result of section 8.
There are different types of employers. Some are genuinely conscientious, but they may none the less discriminate as a result of the complexity of section 8. About 13 different forms have to be used to perform a due diligence check on a job applicant's nationality status, and as many as 40 separate documents have to be reviewed. For companies such as Shell or Unilever and their armies of lawyers that is manageable, but small and medium-sized companies either do not follow procedures, or try to do so and make mistakes.
I suspect that most employers are neither angels nor especially progressive, but they are not racist either. They are merely trying to avoid trouble, given that errors can land them in criminal difficulties. We know the little tricks of the trade in the labour market. A person who rings up about a job and whose accent is obviously Asian or African receives polite excuses to the effect that the job has already gone or that there are many applicants, while an application for a job from someone called Mohammed or Patel meets a predictable response.
The Government claim that those effects can be mitigated by clause 15, but that flies in the face of 20 years of race relations legislation. Such measures are not effective. I am sure that other hon. Members have had similar experiences, but a very able young Asian man came to my advice surgery on Friday who had achieved three A grades at A-level and 7 starred A grades in his GCSEs. He had applied to five medical schools, but had not secured an interview at any of them. He knew and I knew the reason—his name is Patel. Nor are we conspiracy theorists: two days later the Secretary of the Medical Schools Association happened to confirm in the press that that practice was widespread among medical schools. If that can happen in a public and highly reputable profession, in institutions funded by the Government, it is bound to happen on a much wider scale among the small and medium-sized businesses in which such practices are almost impossible to detect.
The Government have tried to discourage such action and have worked hard to produce a formula in the new clause. However, the Commission for Racial Equality has concluded that it will not work. I shall quote from the text


cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), which says that the new regulations will not work
unless non-compliance was to form part of the criminal offence (which would effectively shift anti-discrimination from a civil to a criminal offence)".
The clause is bound to be relatively ineffective and will not outlaw discrimination.
I do not want to exaggerate the importance of the impact of costs on small businesses. If a Bill could outlaw discrimination, it would be worth the price, and business should pay a price. It is reasonable to ask employers to be careful about whom they employ. They should take responsibility for checking that they are not employing illegal people. What is at issue is the magnitude of the administrative problem and the enormous number of checks that must be completed.
Hon. Members who have read previous debates will know of the problem with national insurance numbers. Many people entitled to work have no national insurance number, including people who have indefinite leave to stay or right of abode. Equally, many people who are not entitled to work have national insurance numbers. There are many spare national insurance numbers, and there is a massive disparity between the national insurance numbers of the Benefits Agency and the Contributions Agency. Using national insurance as a check does not work, and passports and other documents must be used as a back-up, which makes the system onerous.
There has been only one prosecution under the 1986 Act—of a farm in Kent—and the Government could argue that the Act is a deterrent and does not impede business operations. It clearly does affect business, however. A constituent of mine who runs a residential home was recently visited by the authorities because someone had tipped them off that asylum seekers were being illegally employed. The company was turned over and its reputation traduced in the local paper. It became widely regarded as a racketeering company, until it was eventually established that nothing wrong had been done. The African who was believed to be an illegal asylum seeker was employed perfectly legally. No explanation was received from the authorities and no apology given. My constituent is pursuing the matter with the ombudsman, but I shall not hold my breath.
Such enforcement is starting to affect businesses. That sort of harassment, plus considerable legal compliance costs, raises problems for business. I do not exaggerate the importance of business costs; racial discrimination is the dominant issue. Encouragement of racial discrimination will continue as long as section 8 remains on the statute book. As my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam has said, that section is unnecessary because enforcement powers exist under earlier Acts.

10 pm

Fiona Mactaggart: The Bill has taught me several lessons about the realities of politics. The first lesson is that it is easier to say something in opposition than it is to do it in government. The second is that when one is faced with complex legislation, and seeks and achieves changes to it by Ministers—I am very grateful for the changes to this Bill—one must focus on the priorities. That means that, during the process of negotiation, one can end up being relatively silent on

points that give cause for concern. I have been relatively silent on the new clause, but I am concerned because I believe that the commitments that we gave in opposition and in the early days of the Government were right.
The third lesson is that civil servants capture Ministers and tell them that something can be achieved. That is particularly ironic when it involves the civil servants responsible for the administration of immigration control, who have for many years been telling Ministers that they can speed up the system. I remember vividly commitments in 1993 and 1996 to make the system much faster, but it did not speed up.
I believe that the commitment to a code of practice was a correct attempt to mitigate the discriminatory effects of section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. However, we should reconsider that commitment now that the Commission for Racial Equality has had an opportunity to examine the draft code of practice, and now that the better regulation task force has said, convincingly, that there will be burdens on business.
There is more than one way to skin this cat. We could amend section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971, so that it is an offence not only knowingly to harbour a person unlawfully but knowingly to secure the unlawful employment of a person. That would be a better way to tackle the abuse, which Ministers have rightly identified, of organised racketeering, and it is right to take action against that.
I strongly supported the Home Secretary when certain other anti-racists suggested that it is unfair for Britain to retain the right to its own immigration controls and that we should be part of a European system. I am absolutely convinced that the focus of immigration controls should be at ports of entry and that one of the advantages of being an island nation is that we have a geographical ability to administer immigration controls more effectively than mainland Europe.
We should not try to expand the operation of controls internally. We should reduce the number of places where immigration controls operate. Those controls should not be operated by hospitals and employers but should be exercised at ports and by immigration officers who follow up people who seek to lie and cheat their way into Britain. By doing that, we could have a more effective system of control. We need methods to deal with organised rackets, but I am not yet convinced that this is the right method.
In view of the further representations by the Commission for Racial Equality, debates in Committee and the unanimous concerns about burdens on business, Ministers might like to take the opportunity of the Bill's passage through another place to find out whether there is another way to skin this cat.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: I shall make a brief contribution because, by my calculation, we should have 10 minutes for each of the other groups of amendments before the guillotine falls at midnight. I doubt whether we shall have the chance to discuss all those amendments or to have a Third Reading debate on what hon. Members on both sides of the House regard as a significant Bill. Whether or not the Government are trying to achieve something similar to the proposals of the previous Government, Government amendments and those in the names of other hon. Members ought often to be discussed at length, if possible. Perhaps when the Bill returns from another place we shall have the opportunity to do that.
I ought to say that I probably voted for section 8 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. Having put that on record, I would like to add that some of the arguments of the Commission for Racial Equality are important. The argument that only one successful prosecution has taken place raises the question whether there are better ways of achieving the aim of section 8. Sir Herman Ouseley and others would want this House to take such arguments seriously.
Those who tabled the new clause and the associated amendment, No. 150, suggest that we should leave out either section 8 of the previous Act or clause 15—originally clause 13—of this Bill. Did the Home Office consult the Commission for Racial Equality on clause 15, as subsection (4) would require? If it did not give Sir Herman Ouseley and the Commission the opportunity to comment on it, I would wonder why. The Government ought to be setting an example instead of waiting until legislation catches their action. It would be useful to hear from the Minister whether the CRE was consulted, what advice it gave and to what extent that advice differs from the content of the very reasonable letter that the commission sent to Members of Parliament concerning this part of the Bill.
I turn to the totally separate university employment issues, which were raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). If overseas students seek employment in part to support themselves at university, how are they affected by clause 15? Is it one of the issues on which the United Kingdom Council for Overseas Student Affairs will have consulted the Home Office? Is it one of the issues, among others, to which the Minister might like to tell the House his response? When may UKCOSA expect to receive a reply to the letter which many hon. Members wished that they had received before Report and Third Reading?
The issue is not politically contentious; it is a straightforward and practical question of whether people such as immigration advisers at universities will need to be registered or pay registration fees, and whether they will be brought within the scope of the Bill under the designated professional bodies, which are now cited in clause 71. That is a point of detail to which the Minister may want to refer.
The overall point is whether we can avoid those ghastly circumstances where, in addition—possibly—to indirect prejudice in employment, all employers are required under the code of practice to undergo for all employees some of the stages stipulated under section 8 of the previous Act when some suspicion is raised. We must move forward from that.
I look forward with interest to what the Minister has to say. He is unlikely to satisfy the whole House now, but if he does not, I believe that another place will interfere with clause 15 to try to introduce a degree of fairness, which this House, with the amount of time left available to it, will not succeed in doing.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: Let us be perfectly straightforward and honest: this new clause presents us with a practical and moral dilemma. The Government have thought very long and hard about this issue. We were initially intending to revoke section 8 of the

Asylum and Immigration Act 1996, but we have had to consider in detail the implications of doing so. We have reached the conclusion that the mischief caused by removing section 8 would be greater than that caused by its remaining, although we acknowledge that it causes discrimination. I have no doubt about that, and that is why we must send a very clear message to employers that it is unacceptable for them to discriminate through the use of section 8. The statutory code is our way of sending that very strong message.
The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) rightly asked whether we had changed our mind. The straight answer is yes, and we have done so after long and careful thought. She criticises us for having opposed the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996. I would say of that Act—I do not know whether she would agree—that there was something of the night about it. Therefore, there were many reasons why we were right to take the view that we did.
However, we have studied this issue with great care, taken stock of the problems associated with illegal working and the exploitation of illegal immigrants and reached the view that this provision will be a valuable tool if it is better targeted against unscrupulous and exploitative employers. We are not alone in that view. Illegal working is a growing global problem. Every other European Union country now has employer sanctions. Indeed, most countries punish the offence by imprisonment as well as fines. We have concluded that we must have a way of dealing with the problem of illegal working in the United Kingdom and the systematic abuse and exploitation of workers.
Yesterday, my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who is sitting on the Back Bench, mentioned the sweatshop economy, where overstayers work, and described how some employers take on overstayers at appalling rates and in very bad conditions, often exploiting them unmercifully. Often, the working conditions are little short of slavery.
We need to ensure that we have a mechanism for dealing with the way in which some of those employers operate. They are able to get away with it because there is almost a conspiracy between the overstayer or illegal immigrant and the employer. The overstayer or illegal immigrant does not want to come to the attention of the authorities and therefore will not report a breach of health and safety conditions or of minimum wage legislation, so those are not ways in which we can get at the employer. We have carefully considered other ways.
The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) candidly said that the Liberal Democrats, too, had considered the issue, and had reached a judgment that section 8 had to go. I can understand why they might have reached that judgment, but it is a difficult judgment for us to reach. We think that, by having a statutory code, we can correct the balance and convey a strong message that the discrimination that section 8 sometimes creates can be dealt with and that employers must not discriminate. However, the removal of section 8 would come at too high a price in terms of leaving many workers to be exploited.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona MactaggArt) argued that existing offences under section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 relating to persons who are knowingly concerned in assisting illegal entry and


harbouring could be accommodated or used against those who facilitate illegal working. We have looked at that argument very closely, and it does not work. No doubt the Liberal Democrats have looked at it, too, and concluded that it does not work. However, the problem is one of mens rea—proof of the requisite state of mind. Employers simply say, "I did not ask, so I did not know", and unless there is an obligation for them to do some checks—the nature of which I shall discuss in a moment—it is very difficult to use section 25 against an employer who poses as a facilitator or harbours illegal immigrants. Our advice is that the need to prove mens rea makes it very difficult to convict in those circumstances, and it is not possible to create a criminal law that will enable us to deal with that.
On the other hand, section 8 deals with the unscrupulous employer, yet affords the honest employer a defence based on a simple document check, which he must apply in a way that does not discriminate. We seek to retain that offence and want it to be further tested in tackling the growing problem of systematic abuse.
Members of the Chinese community have met the Home Secretary. They are concerned that Chinese illegal immigrants are paying traffickers as much as £14,000 to get them illegally into Britain and into jobs. They do that not by having £14,000 in a bank in China, but by becoming bound labour. They are bound for five years or more, and they come to Britain and work at appallingly low wages and often in dreadful conditions. The Chinese community is rightly concerned at the extent of that activity, and wants it stopped.
10.15 pm
We also have the problem of the gang masters, who use the lump system that was used on building sites in the past. It is now used on the land. The gang master sells a gang of illegal immigrants or asylum seekers—people from Poland and Lithuania seem to have been particularly involved in this exercise—and the farmer asks no questions and gets cheap labour, which undercuts the wages of agricultural workers in the area. Section 8 at least enables us to get at the gang master. We need to be able to tackle unscrupulous employers.
We did oppose section 8 in opposition, because we seriously feared that it would cause discrimination. That is a problem, but we need to be able to deal with exploitative employers. We say that at present section 8 is not operating properly. We refer an allegation to the prosecuting authorities after we have served an offending employer with a warning. That is because the measures were primarily designed to combat widespread abuse, not to penalise small employers who have made a simple mistake.
We do not intend to penalise small employers who have made a mistake and do not intend to facilitate on a large scale. To date, 40 warnings have been issued, but there has been only one prosecution, which was very recent. After long and hard thought, we took a decision to implement the legislation. The reason that we have not prosecuted more is that we were considering the issue carefully. We were extremely concerned about the implications of section 8. We finally decided that we needed to take action because the extent of the abuse was so considerable.
The recent prosecution involved the illegal employment of a number of people in the horticultural industry. Given the opportunity of mounting a defence against

prosecution under section 8, the employer was unable to do so. The company pleaded guilty and was fined a total of £4,500 and ordered to pay costs.
Given the vast profits involved in employing cheap, exploitable, illegal labour, we must tackle the abuse. We are keen to bring more cases to court and to send a strong message to racketeers, who often employ quite large numbers of illegal immigrants, and to those who facilitate that. That is not only with a view to maintaining firm control of immigration, but in the interests of vulnerable employees, many of whom are badly exploited. Those who seek to remove section 8 would leave illegal immigrants to be exploited by unscrupulous employers in order to cut wages.
On amendments Nos. 150 and 157, clause 15 is designed to emphasise to employers their duty to avoid racial discrimination in their recruiting practices when they seek to secure the statutory defence under section 8. We will make it part of our statutory code to apply initial checks without discrimination, and we will enforce that.
The obligation is clear. I shall read from the current code, which is not statutory, but forms the basis on which we will consult. It states:
The best way to ensure that you do not discriminate is to treat all applicants in the same way at each stage of the recruitment process. You may ask for a document at any stage—but if you ask for a document from one applicant make sure you ask for a document from all applicants being considered at that stage.
That is a clear way in which employers can make sure that they do not discriminate.
Our code has the serious purpose of tackling discrimination where it occurs. It occurs in some employment practices. We accept that some employers might seek to use section 8 as an excuse for racially discriminatory purposes. We want to make it clear to all employers that they should not even begin to contemplate using the excuse of the statutory defence under section 8 to discriminate. We will not tolerate racism from employers.
That is why we need clause 15 and reject the amendment, which would remove the statutory code. We want to deal with these issues firmly. Our code will give a clear and simple message to employers who may be discriminating unintentionally, or who may attempt to dissriminate. They will be unable to do so because the legislation will be enforced. Those who discriminate and use section 8 as an excuse to do so will know that the code will be used against them in the courts. It therefore provides the extra deterrent against discrimination that we need.
As I have said throughout the debate, there are two problems that we need to tackle: first, the mischief of unscrupulous employers exploiting illegal labour to drive down wages; and, secondly, the mischief of racist discrimination being excused by section 8. We will tolerate neither. Section 8 will be used to tackle gang masters and racketeers, and those who import illegal labour. It will be used to target serious criminals without warning in a much more concerted and focused way.
We will also use the new statutory code to tackle racism. The Liberal Democrat amendment would remove our ability to do that. The hon. Member for Hallam has been honest and open about how the Liberal Democrats have come to their conclusion, and I understand the logic of their argument. Indeed, I have a degree of sympathy


with it. However, it leaves dangerously exposed many vulnerable people, who are either overstayers or illegal immigrants, and others, who may then face exploitation. Moreover, it does nothing about the fact that illegal working drives down wages and allows some unscrupulous employers to drive down the wages of people who might otherwise be able to work lawfully.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) mentioned that Bangladeshis in her community face fivefold discrimination. We need to tackle discrimination and enforce the Race Relations Act 1976. We also need to enforce the statutory code that we are providing in the Bill. I remind my hon. Friend that her constituents also face the problem of exploitation in sweatshops. We need to deal with that, too. She said that the Government have an excellent record on race relations and race equality. We want to enhance that record. We have already said that we are examining the race equality legislation and we seek to move it firmly forward. What we cannot do, however, is allow the exploitation of vulnerable workers by the removal of section 8.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) asked whether we were still listening. My hon. Friend asked whether there was another way to skin a cat. We are still listening and if there are ways to deal with exploitative employers and to reduce discrimination, we want to hear them. This matter is still to be discussed in another place and we are more than willing to talk to the Commission for Racial Equality. I met Bob Perkiss of the CRE and discussed those matters at length. It is aware of our concerns, although it still has its views, as the Liberal Democrats and others have theirs. However, it understands that these are real issues, which the Government must address.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: Can the Minister answer directly the question that was put to him, which was: was the CRE consulted about section 8? Was it consulted about clause 15, which was previously clause 13, and has it put directly to the Minister, as it has to Back-Bench Members, its concerns about the present position? It has written to Members of Parliament saying that it is against it.

Mr. O'Brien: Yes. When we were considering this matter I met Bob Perkiss of the Commission for Racial Equality, who was representing Sir Herman Ouseley, and we discussed at length our concerns about the issue. Strong representations were made to me and it was clear that there were some arguments. Like the Liberal Democrats, the CRE took the view that the balance of the argument was in favour of removing section 8. Although it accepted that there was an issue of exploitative employers, it wanted to have section 8 removed. We have reached a different judgment. We do not think that we can leave the exploitative employers to continue to exploit vulnerable people, which would be the effect of removing the provision.
We have consulted widely. No organisation has yet come back to us to show us how we can effectively deal with both the mischiefs that we seek to tackle with the provision. We were faced with a dilemma. We have resolved it by strengthening the anti-racist provisions with

a statutory code, which we will enforce. We have had to face up to the reality that section 8 is being used to discriminate and we have had to find a way of tackling that. We believe that the statutory code will achieve that.
The previous Government had a non-statutory code and, therefore, we needed to send a much tougher and stronger message. There is no panacea here, and this dilemma is difficult for all of us, but the hard realities have had to be faced. We have taken the view that the balance of the argument comes down in favour of retaining section 8, but improving the strength of the code by making it statutory, and making a firm commitment that the Government will take action if we find that employers are discriminating.

Mr. Allan: We do not want to encourage illegal working or the exploitation of workers in such a situation. We do not take that view; nor do those who share our position—the Commission for Racial Equality, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the Trades Union Congress and the Confederation of British Industry. I hope that the Minister does not characterise all of us as wishing to encourage illegal working. We are talking about the best way to tackle that without the unnecessary consequence, and it is important that we get that straight.
I was grateful to the right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) for intervening to point out the discrepancy—or the movement—in the Government's position. We moved on to talk about skinning cats, which took me back to a comment made yesterday by the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). She characterised the staff of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate as nice people who probably love animals and go to church. I wondered whether she was recommending the right hon. Lady for a job in the IND; she seems to be eminently qualified.
When the Minister opened the debate on Report yesterday, he said that many of the previous positions could be characterised as knee-jerk leftism, but we certainly feel that the opposition to section 8 which the Labour party showed during proceedings on the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 was not knee-jerk leftism, but a principled and rational response to what turned out to be discriminatory. We are disappointed that, once again, firmer seems to have won out over fairer in measures relating to illegal working.
I was rather attracted to the suggestions made by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), who said that we ought to be considering new and better ways of making section 25 of the Immigration Act 1971 work. The situations described by the Minister, such as Chinese gang masters smuggling people in at great expense, should be dealt with under section 25. I should be horrified to find that such people are being dealt with under section 8 of the 1996 Act when we have a provision on the statue book under which we could sentence them to up to 10 years in jail, rather than imposing rather paltry fines under that section.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I think that the hon. Gentleman misunderstands the point. Facilitators are able to do such things because some employers are prepared to employ


people at low salaries and in bad conditions. We need to be able to prevent them, not the people who import the workers, from doing that.

Mr. Allan: I do not disagree that there may be connivance and that that causes problems, but I should have thought that, because the National Criminal Intelligence Service is doing good work on such rackets and because we are taking many intelligence-led approaches, we could trace people through, take appropriate action and, if necessary, amend the 1971 Act.
The 1971 Act deals with intent, which is the crucial element. Section 8 of the 1996 Act refers to a strict liability, and intent does not have to be shown in the same way, which is a fundamental difference. I believe that, rather than coming up with new provisions which simply cast the net wider, provide lower penalties and have a lower standard of proof because that makes it easier to prosecute, it would be far better to use existing law to show intent.
It is not the business of government to revise the law in such a way. Rather, we should make existing law work when it is the appropriate law for dealing with the kind of the offences that we are discussing. Section 25 is the appropriate provision for such offences. If the Government were serious about tackling the racketeers, they would include in the Bill an amendment to section 25 of the 1971 Act. That would be a much better way of dealing with the problem than continuing the life span of section 8 of the 1996 Act.
If we are to deal with this problem, section 8 must be removed. Hon. Members face a simple choice: they can vote with us to lift the burden from citizens of this country and people who are legitimately seeking appropriate work, but happen to look foreign or have foreign-sounding names, or they can sit on their hands and allow the Bill to go through unamended and let the Government off the hook. The Government are retreating from the position that they took in opposition of fighting discrimination, and are hoping that a few more prosecutions will take place.
The code of practice that the Government have suggested as a solution would have to be operated and enforced against employers. It is difficult to see how we could seriously expect that code of practice to be enforced in an anti-discriminatory way if section 8 of the 1996 Act is not even enforced significantly. We will not move forward on anti-discrimination if section 8 remains in force. I urge Labour Members to stick to the position that they honourably took in opposition and vote with us for the repeal of section 8 of the 1996 Act.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 39, Noes 334.

Division No. 210]
[10.31 pm


AYES


Allan, Richard
Burstow, Paul


Baker, Norman
Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)


Ballard, Jackie



Beggs, Roy
Chidgey David


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Cotter, Brian


Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Brake, Tom
Feam, Ronnie


Brake, Tom
Foster, Don (Bath)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Harvey, Nick


Burnett, John
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)





Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Sanders, Adrian


Keetch, Paul

Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Kirkwood, Archy
Stunell, Andrew


Livsey, Richard
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tyler, Paul


Llwyd, Elfyn
Webb, Steve


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Welsh, Andrew


Moore, Michael
Wills, Phill


Oaten, Mark
Wood, Mike


Öpik, Lembit
Tellers for the Ayes:


Rendel, David
Dr. Evan Harris and


Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Dr. Vincent Cable.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)


Ainger, Nick
Clelland, David


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Clwyd, Ann


Alexander, Douglas
Coaker, Vernon


Allen, Graham
Coffey, Ms Ann


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Coleman, Iain


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Colman, Tony


Ashton, Joe
Connarty, Michael


Atherton, Ms Candy
Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)


Atkins, Charlotte
Corbett, Robin


Barnes, Harry
Corbyn, Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Corston, Ms Jean


Battle, John
Cousins, Jim


Bayley, Hugh
Cranston, Ross


Beard, Nigel
Crausby, David


Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret
Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)


Begg, Miss Anne
Cryer, John (Hornchurch)


Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)
Cummings, John


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Dalyell, Tam


Bennett, Andrew F
Darling, Rt Hon Alistair


Benton, Joe
Darvill, Keith


Berry, Roger
Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)


Best, Harold
Davidson, Ian


Blackman, Liz
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)


Blizzard, Bob
Dawson, Hilton


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Dean, Mrs Janet


Boateng, Paul
Denham, John


Borrow, David
Dismore, Andrew


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Dobbin, Jim


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Dobson, Rt Hon Frank


Bradshaw, Ben
Donohoe, Brian H


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Doran, Frank


Brown, Rt Hon Gordon (Dunfermline E)
Dowd, Jim



Drew, David


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)


Browne, Desmond
Edwards, Huw


Buck, Ms Karen
Efford, Clive


Burden, Richard
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Butler, Mrs Christine
Ennis, Jeff


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

Flint, Caroline


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Follett, Barbara


Cann, Jamie
Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)


Caton, Martin
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Cawsey, Ian
Foulkes, George


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Fyfe, Maria


Chaytor, David
Galloway, George


Church, Ms Judith
Gapes, Mike


Clapham, Michael
Gardiner, Barry


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Gerrard, Neil


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Gibson, Dr Ian



Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Godsiff, Roger


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Goggins, Paul






Golding, Mrs Llin
Macdonald, Calum


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McDonnell, John


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
McFall, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Grocott, Bruce
McIsaac, Shona


Grogan, John
Mackinlay, Andrew


Gunnell, John
McNulty, Tony


Hain, Peter
MacShane, Denis


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
McWalter, Tony


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
McWilliam, John


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Mallaber, Judy


Heal, Mrs Sylvia
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Healey, John
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hepburn, Stephen
Marshall-Andrews, Robert


Heppell, John
Martlew, Eric


Hesford, Stephen
Meacher, Rt Hon Michael


Hewitt, Ms Patricia
Meale, Alan


Hill, Keith
Merron, Gillian


Hinchliffe, David
Michael, Rt Hon Alun


Hodge, Ms Margaret
Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)


Hoey, Kate
Milburn, Rt Hon Alan


Hood, Jimmy
Miller, Andrew


Hoon, Geoffrey
Moffatt, Laura


Hope, Phil
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Hopkins, Kelvin
Moran, Ms Margaret


Howarth, Alan (Newport E)
Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Morley, Elliot


Howells, Dr Kim
Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Hoyle, Lindsay
Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)


Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)
Mountford, Kali


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie


Humble, Mrs Joan
Mudie, George


Hurst, Alan
Mullin, Chris


Iddon, Dr Brian
Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)


Ingram, Rt Hon Adam
Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)


Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)
Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)


Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)
Naysmith, Dr Doug


Jamieson, David
Norris, Dan


Jenkins, Brian
O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)


Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)
O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)


Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)
Olner, Bill



O'Neill, Martin


Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)
Osborne, Ms Sandra


Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)
Palmer, Dr Nick


Jones, Helen (Warrington N)
Pearson, Ian


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Pendry, Tom


Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)
Pickthall, Colin


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)
Pike, Peter L


Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa
Plaskitt, James


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Pond, Chris


Keeble, Ms Sally
Pope, Greg


Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)
Powell, Sir Raymond


Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)


Khabra, Piara S
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Kidney, David
Primarolo, Dawn


Kilfoyle, Peter
Prosser, Gwyn


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Purchase, Ken


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Quinn, Lawrie


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Radice, Giles


Laxton, Bob
Rammell, Bill


Lepper, David
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Leslie, Christopher
Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)


Levitt, Tom
Robinson, Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Linton, Martin
Rooker, Jeff


Livingstone, Ken
Rooney, Terry


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Lock, David
Rowlands, Ted


McAvoy, Thomas
Roy, Frank


McCabe, Steve
Ruane, Chris


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Ruddock, Joan



Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McDonagh, Siobhain
Ryan, Ms Joan





Sarwar, Mohammad
Temple-Morris, Peter


Savidge, Malcolm
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Sawford, Phil
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Sedgemore, Brian
Timms, Stephen


Shaw, Jonathan
Tipping, Paddy


Sheerman, Barry
Touhig, Don


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Short, Rt Hon Clare
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Skinner, Dennis
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Smith, Angela (Basildon)
Vaz, Keith


Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)
Walley, Ms Joan


Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)
Ward, Ms Claire


Smith, John (Glamorgan)
Wareing, Robert N


Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)
Watts, David


Snape, Peter
White, Brian


Soley, Clive
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Southworth, Ms Helen
Wicks, Malcolm


Spellar, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Squire, Ms Rachel



Steinberg, Gerry
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Stewart, David (Inverness E)
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Stewart, Ian (Eccles)
Wills, Michael


Stinchcombe, Paul
Winnick, David


Stoate, Dr Howard
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Stott, Roger
Wise, Audrey


Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin
Woolas, Phil


Straw, Rt Hon Jack
Worthington, Tony


Stringer, Graham
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Stuart, Ms Gisela
Wyatt, Derek


Sutcliffe, Gerry



Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Noes:



Mr. David Hanson and


Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 7

REMOVAL OF CERTAIN PERSONS UNLAWFULLY IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

Amendments made: No. 28, in page 5, line 14, leave out from beginning to 'has' in line 18 and insert
has made an application for leave to remain in accordance with regulations made under section (Treatment of certain overstayers) which'.

No. 29, in page 5, line 28, leave out from beginning to end of line 29.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Clause 13

SUPPLY OF INFORMATION TO SECRETARY OF STATE

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I beg to move amendment No. 30, in page 9, line 40, at end insert—
'( ) the provision of support for asylum-seekers and their dependants under Part VI;'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 16, in page 51, line 13, at end insert—
'Secretary of State" means the Secretary of State for Social Security;'.

No. 19, in page 52, line 42, at end insert—

'(12) The Secretary of State shall within one year of this section coming into effect and every year thereafter make a report to Parliament on—

(a) the provision of support for asylum seekers and their dependants under this section; and

(b) the length of time asylum seekers wait for—

(i) his determination of their application; and
(ii) appeals against his decisions.'.

No. 153, in page 53, leave out lines 15 to 18 and insert—
'(3) The Secretary of State may provide support under subsection (1)(a), (1)(b) or (2) above, wholly, mainly or partly by way of cash payments made (by whatever means) to the supported person or his dependants (if any).'.
No. 154, in page 54, line 35, leave out
', or might reasonably be expected to be,'.
No. 155, line 36, at end insert—
'(3A) No personal possessions connected with marriage or religious beliefs and any other assets as are proscribed by the Secretary of State shall be taken into account under section 83(3) above.'.

Mr. O'Brien: This group of amendments deals with part VI of the Bill. Government amendment No. 30 will enable information held by police, the National Criminal Intelligence Service, the national crime squad, Customs and Excise and any person specified in an order made by the Secretary of State to be supplied to the Home Office for use in the provision of support to asylum seekers and their dependants. That will help us to identify and bring to justice those who seek to abuse the asylum support system, and allow us to receive information from other agencies, which are to be specified—such as the Benefits Agency—that we need to operate part VI of the Bill.
Although we certainly do not envisage any great use being made of the provision, it is necessary to assist in the prevention of fraud in particular cases. As the Government have stated on numerous occasions, it is intended that the power to supply information shall be operated in a manner that is consistent with other applicable legal requirements, most notably data protection legislation and article 8 of the European convention on human rights.
It may well be that, in tabling amendment No. 16, Conservative Members are trying to suggest that, against the background of the current and—perhaps thanks to the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison)— well-publicised difficulties in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, they lack some confidence in the Home Office's ability to deliver an efficient service to destitute asylum seekers.
Hon. Members will be well aware of the reasons for the problems faced by the IND, but those problems are being dealt with. On the latest figures, 67 per cent. more asylum decisions are being made this year than were made last year. Moreover, over the next three years, £120 million extra will be put into the IND' s budget. We shall also recruit hundreds more staff, and are currently actively recruiting 200 more staff members.
On Monday, the long-lost Siemens computer system arrived. However, we think that it will take five or perhaps six months of testing before we are absolutely certain that it works as it was meant to when it was signed up to in 1996.
The number of cases being processed each month by the IND has started to rise again, with the target being that, by 1 April 2001, on average, decisions will be taken within two months, and that any subsequent appeal will be determined within another four months. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has given a commitment that, with effect from 1 April 2000, decisions on the asylum claims of families with children will be delivered within two months. If that cannot be achieved, they will not be brought into the new support arrangements on that date.
Giving the Home Office responsibility for supporting asylum seekers, in addition to processing their substantive asylum claims, will create a more focused approach in meeting the needs of asylum seekers than has existed in the past, and provides an added incentive in ensuring that the targets are achieved. By placing responsibility for the new support arrangements in the hands of the Secretary of State for Social Security—as Conservative Members propose doing—that advantage would be lost. We therefore cannot accept amendment No. 16.
One of the reasons for the growth of the backlog under the previous Government was that no one really had an incentive to deal with it, as the costs were met by the Department of Social Security or by local councils. The Home Office needed to have a vested interest in clearing the backlog, but did not have one. Under the new financial arrangements, in which all funding—including support funding—will be with the Home Office, the Home Office will indeed have a vested incentive to process cases quickly and on a sustainable basis. We shall have to employ the people that we need to ensure that that objective is achieved.
It is important also that the arrangements provided by part VI of the Bill should be kept separate from the main social security system. The new system will be designed to provide support for limited periods and in different ways from the social security system to people who have distinctive needs that are quite different from those who are in the UK on a long-term basis.
Amendment No. 19, tabled by the Conservatives, appears to be directed at the commitment to reduce the time taken to reach an initial decision on asylum claims to an average of two months and the average time taken to determine an appeal to four months. Despite the problems that the IND has experienced in recent months—indeed, for the past decade—action is being undertaken to deal with the backlog, and we are making progress towards reaching our targets for processing cases.
Information on the average times in which claims are processed and appeals are determined is not published routinely, but it is in the public domain. By way of replies to parliamentary questions on the subject, which appear to be asked quite regularly, not least by the hon. Member for Hertsmere, the information can be obtained at any time by Members of Parliament. However, there is a case for the information being published on a more regular basis, and because the proposals in the amendment are not the best way of achieving that, we shall onsider other means of making the information more widely available.
As the hon. Gentleman is aware, the Government now publish regular bulletins on asylum and immigration trends, so one of the means that we shall consider is inserting in that statistical bulletin a category detailing


how quickly decisions are made. That would go further than an annual report to Parliament, in that it would provide a more regular bulletin. I give no commitment now to introduce such a measure, but I acknowledge the argument for making the information more readily available and have no objection to doing that. Our intention is to tackle the issues and ensure that we hit our targets, and we are well prepared to be held accountable for that.
The basic safety net that the new support arrangements for asylum seekers will provide assumes that the period of time an asylum seeker needs to rely on the safety net is to be kept to a minimum. However, it must be borne in mind that, under the current arrangements, many asylum seekers receive little in the way of back-up and general assistance. Under the new arrangements, the voluntary sector will be of fundamental importance, providing a considerable degree of back-up and assistance to asylum seekers. The Bill contains provisions to encourage the voluntary sector to do that. Hon. Members may be assured that the overall conditions experienced by most asylum seekers will be improved from current standards. The rather chaotic system that we inherited left a lot to be desired, and we are strongly committed to improving it.
We went over the ground covered by the Liberal Democrats' amendment, No. 153, at some length in Committee. As I explained then, the Government's view is that the availability of cash benefits is a significant pull factor to some people, who choose to use the asylum process as a means of supporting themselves while visiting this country for reasons wholly different from a well-founded fear of persecution. I do not suggest that that is true of all asylum seekers or even of the majority, but it is true of a significant minority, and substituting vouchers for cash payments is a disincentive to those who would exploit the system.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has already made clear, we do not believe that people who are genuinely fleeing for their lives are likely not to flee because they would enter a system in which vouchers and cash were a combined element. That would not be a factor that influenced their decision. We propose to allow £10 per person per week by way of cash, with the balance in vouchers. On the illustrative figures that we published earlier this year, a family of two adults and two children would receive £40 by way of cash and more than £50 by way of vouchers.
There might have been some confusion about the fact that there will be an element of choice for the asylum seekers. They will have a choice of accommodation plus support, or just the support. They may initially accept the accommodation, but decide not to continue with it after a while, perhaps because they have found accommodation with relatives. They may wish to move to London. My hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) has expressed concern about that. Provided that we have a registered address for them, they can decide whether to accept the one-off offer of accommodation and support or just the support. Some asylum seekers may choose to live with relatives in my hon. Friend's constituency. That is up to them. Our concern is that they provide us with a registered address.

Mr. Allan: It was not made clear in Committee whether the support provided to someone who lived with

friends of relatives would be identical to that provided to someone living in accommodation that was provided for them.

Mr. O'Brien: The support will be paid in a different way if people are accommodated. One of the aims of the accommodation system is to provide for the heating and lighting costs, as well as other factors. Those who choose the support without the accommodation will pay their own utility costs, which will no doubt be shared if they are living with relatives. However, the offer of accommodation and support will still be open to them. They can choose whatever they feel is most appropriate.

Mr. Corbyn: The Minister seems to be saying that there would be no impediment to the continued payment of the support system apart from the housing cost if someone chose to live somewhere other than the place that they were initially allocated. Is that correct?

Mr. O'Brien: We shall offer an asylum seeker accommodation plus support. That will include payment of utilities bills and payments for various other temporary needs such as kettles, cutlery and the like. That choice remains open at all times. However, some may choose not to take that option and will live elsewhere, taking just the cash plus vouchers. The choice will be theirs and it will not be forced on them by us.

Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Home Secretary said that people who took the offer of accommodation had their utilities paid for. What happens in respect of the utilities for those who make their own accommodation arrangements? Will those people be able to uplift the standard vouchers and cash to be able to pay for their utilities themselves?

Mr. O'Brien: They will be offered accommodation plus support. If they decide not to accept that, they will have chosen to accept only vouchers plus cash. Some may choose to go one way and others another. They may change their mind at some point in the process. That will be a matter for them.
11 pm
The vouchers will be exchangeable at a wide range of outlets throughout the United Kingdom and there will be no restriction on the items for which they may be used, although we would expect them to be used only by the person or household to whom they are issued. We are actively considering the possibility of their being redeemable at charity shops.
It was pointed out in Committee—and we listened carefully—that some people may feel that clothing and other items are too expensive in supermarkets. Many people buy clothing and low-cost items at charity shops, and we are considering with the charities whether they could help by accepting vouchers.
Our aim is that the asylum seekers will be in the support arrangements on average for no more than six months, and often for much shorter periods. If they are recognised as genuine refugees under the 1951 convention, we would want that to happen as soon as possible, within two months or less; the sooner the better, from our point of view. The only restriction is the five-day


period that we have agreed should be allowed for people to present their case, after which we will want to proceed to a decision unless there is good reason for not doing so, such as that the asylum seeker or his legal representative wants to provide further evidence.

Audrey Wise: The big principles about the vouchers have already been well rehearsed, but a smaller point bothers me. The fact that they are in bigger units than our normal currency will almost inevitably cost people more. If the smallest unit is 50p, for example, is there any way of arranging that change could be given? It would not be a lot of cash, but it would save people losing some of their meagre resources.

Mr. O'Brien: In due course, we will consider the detail of the regulations. Throughout our proceedings, right from the start of the consultation process on the White Paper, we have agreed to listen to representations, and we are actively considering the point that my hon. Friend raised. The units of the voucher could be as little as 25p, and we are considering whether it would be useful to have a small amount of cash in change.
We do not want to get into a position in which people buy a newspaper to get all the cash, because that would go against the whole spirit of the exercise, but we want to take a reasonable approach. Allowing some change to be given and ensuring that the denominations are small enough is one way of trying to ensure that the system works effectively. We are continuing to listen, and I will consider the matter as we develop the criteria for the regulations.

Mr. Corbyn: What representations has the Minister had from the supermarket chains about the use of these vouchers, and are they concerned about them?

Mr. O'Brien: I am not aware that they have expressed concerns to us. I know that others have, particularly about the fact that the way in which the local authorities have run some of their voucher schemes has meant that the vouchers were restricted to particular supermarkets in an area. We want to set up a national scheme so that, if the asylum seeker has to move for a period, visit relatives, or whatever, the voucher can be used at any major national supermarket and, in due course, if we can negotiate the arrangements, with various charity organisations.
The aim is to ensure that we create a system that works and we shall be discussing closely with the supermarkets any concerns that they may have about how the system might operate. We shall be anxious to listen to them and to see whether there are ways in which we can more effectively ensure that the system deals with the proper needs of those seeking asylum.
Liberal Democrat amendment No.154 seeks to leave out the provision that would allow the new Asylum Support Directorate to make assumptions about what support might be available to an asylum seeker if he chose to seek it. We need the provision. Asylum support from the Home Office is supposed to be the last resort to prevent destitution, not the first port of call for the Imelda Marcoses or the Shahs of Iran contemplating an asylum claim.
Without the provision, we would have difficulty in asking asylum seekers what other resources or assets might be at their disposal. They may, for example,

have relatives already established in this country who are offering them accommodation, so that they would need to rely on the ASD only for other support. In general, the ASD would not expect those relatives to provide essential living expenses, or anything like that. The purpose of the provision is not to attempt to offload responsibility onto any unwilling third party.
Amendment No. 155 is also unnecessary. In assessing an applicant's assets, we may wish to take into account certain valuables including, if it is a substantial amount, gold or other jewellery. That represents a significant source of wealth in some communities. However, I have made it clear that we shall not be taking into account wedding rings or personal devotional objects. That is not the objective of the exercise. That will be made clear in the regulations on the ASD support system that we shall produce in due course. We shall consult on just what to prescribe in that way in due course.
As I have already said, there are examples of people bringing in substantial amounts of gold. I have spoken to some myself. The woman to whom I spoke at Waterloo said that she was carrying the equivalent of £4,000 worth of gold. She had come from a country in some turmoil, so we usually grant asylum to its people if they apply. In many ways, it is an unsafe country. I never ask the names of people to whom I speak, so I do not know the name of the lady in question, although no doubt it would be possible to trace her. She was coming here to set up a business, but she was also fleeing from a country with a civil war; she had sold her business to come here, bringing with her the proceeds of that sale.
Someone with £4,000 is not destitute. We would expect to be able to take that into account. To exclude whole classes of objects in primary legislation, as the Liberal Democrats propose, rather than on the basis of a more detailed test, which we can consider when we produce the regulations in due course, would be wrong. This is the wrong time and the wrong legislation for such an amendment. If Liberal Democrats have a view about this, we can discuss it when the regulations come before the House.

Mr. Clappison: I wish to speak to amendments Nos. 19 and 16. As has been correctly anticipated, amendment No. 19 is designed to introduce a much-needed element of accountability into the new system. Amendment No. 16 deals with a different point: it explores the wisdom of giving responsibility for the new asylum support system to the Home Office.
The Government propose the creation of a brand new administrative arm of the Home Office for the management of asylum support. Given that there is no tradition of Home Office experience in such matters, and that the administrative machinery will be wholly new, the background is hardly propitious. The backlog of cases being managed by the asylum determination system, which is a Home Office responsibility, is now reaching record levels. It rose from 64,000 at the end of last year to 76,000 at the end of April, and is still growing.
I shall not go further into those figures, although the Under-Secretary of State has referred to my interest in such matters. Indeed, we are very familiar with each other's speeches on them, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Sir N. Fowler) said yesterday. To be fair to the Under-Secretary, he was good


enough not to give us the full version of his speech, in which he sets out his perception of responsibility for those issues.
However, we could reach common ground. The system has got much worse—I shall resist the temptation to say that that has happened in recent months—and the backlog is at a record high. The waiting times for asylum determination appeals taken together are miles away from the Government's targets. The evidence given in the Special Standing Committee shows that hardly anyone seriously believes that the Government will achieve their targets. The officials who naturally said that the Government would achieve those targets did so with a knowing look or a wry smile.
I recently received a letter from the Under-Secretary about the current state of the passport system. Members of the public who want a passport so that they can go on holiday abroad this summer are facing long delays. The letter states:
I am sorry that the current arrears are resulting in calls to MPs' offices.
That is not entirely surprising, but the wording seemed rather familiar. In my file of letters from the Minister, I found one on the subject of the backlog in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. The long queues of people wanting to stay in this country prove that there is no discrimination in the Government's policy: backlogs are affecting people who want to leave the country and those who want to stay in.
That earlier letter stated:
One final category of work that is causing problems in Croydon results from MPs' letters chasing progress on particular cases. On 12 January, I asked colleagues to forward only the most urgent enquiries … Nonetheless, it is disappointing to note that the number of enquiries from MPs has risen over the recent period by a factor of 25 per cent.
How very disagreeable it is of Members of Parliament to have the temerity to write letters to Ministers, let alone to expect answers.

Mr. Gapes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Clappison: No, as I am just about to conclude my remarks.
If he is fair, the Minister must agree that the background to the matter is hardly propitious. After all the Government's broken promises, it would take a brave man to say that they will achieve their targets. We might have more confidence in predicting that it is highly likely that, in the end, the British taxpayer will be asked to pick up the bill.

Mr. Allan: I am pleased to hear that the Siemens computer system has been delivered, but if there is a five-month testing period, it will come on-line on about 1 January 2000, which may not be the best of ideas. The system is so delayed that it may calculate people's vouchers in pounds, shillings and pence. While that may be proper money, it would not be useful to asylum seekers to receive vouchers for half a crown or three bob and sixpence. [Interruption.] I shall not rise to remarks about matters European as, if I did so, I should stray well away from the amendments.
Amendment No. 153 seeks to assist the Secretary of State by offering him a "Get out of jail free" card if administrative problems arise. It does not prevent him from using vouchers, but allows flexibility to choose whatever balance he wants between vouchers and cash payments. The Bill limits him to paying up to 49 per cent. in cash and a minimum of 51 per cent. in vouchers. It states that he must not provide wholly or mainly by means of payments.
The amendment reverses that provision, saying that the Secretary of State can provide wholly, mainly or partly in cash. I have to ask why the Secretary of State, who is so keen on flexibility elsewhere, is unwilling to have it in this area. If the Asylum Support Directorate works out as we suspect, I fear that the Bill will, in 18 months' time, prevent him from replacing the vouchers with cash, even if that appears to be the most sensible decision and the best deal for the taxpayer. The Government have admitted that the voucher system will be expensive. The more we explore the system, the more concerned we become about its implications and expense and the hassle of running it.
Amendment No. 153 is not an aggressive attempt to divert the Government from their path, but an effort to help by giving additional flexibility to the Secretary of State, who has virtually pinned his political future—or, perhaps, the career of the Minister of State—to the success of the Asylum Support Directorate.
The Under-Secretary has failed to answer our questions about people in accommodation of their own choosing who will not be supported. Clause 18 makes it clear that if other accommodation is available for someone, the Secretary of State will not provide accommodation, but will judge whether that person already has adequate accommodation. Sometimes, people will have chosen their accommodation, but sometimes they will not. If people are living with relatives, the Secretary of State will be able to say that he does not need to give them accommodation.
In either case, the critical point is not the individual's choice, but the rate paid. Will people receive the same 70 per cent. as those in accommodation provided by the Secretary of State? Or will they receive 70 per cent. plus a small uplift to pay the utility costs that would not arise in supported accommodation? I hope that the Minister knows how he intends to handle that point, particularly as accommodation may not be a matter of personal choice. Clause 80 makes it clear that if a person has friends or relatives, he may be required to stay with them if the accommodation is deemed to be adequate.
The final two amendments arose from concerns about comments made in Committee by the Under-Secretary. He has since moved on, and we appreciate his reassurances that some of our fears will not be realised. However, assets remain a grey area. The Government must flesh out their proposals, perhaps when the Bill proceeds to the other place. They cannot simply leave matters to regulations. People want a clear idea of what assets will remain to them. It is not as simple as saying that someone who has £4,000 in gold should have it taken away and that he can start again from scratch once his claim has been recognised.
The Minister referred to an individual with £4,000 who wanted to start a business. If that person was given refugee status, the public interest would arguably be


served if he retained his assets and started a business rather than being a burden on the public purse because he had no means of supporting himself.
We recognise that argument in social security legislation, which provides for a £3,000 floor: we enable people to keep their last £3,000-worth of assets because we hope that at some point they will no longer need social security benefits and will play an active role in our economy. There is no justification for stripping away asylum seekers' assets until they are left with next to nothing if we have a realistic expectation that they will be recognised as asylum seekers.
The Minister will have to flesh out that provision. It is not an issue that we shall press tonight, but the hon. Gentleman will run into further trouble with people who share my concerns if he is unable to clarify exactly what level of assets the Government intend to specify in the regulations for deciding whether to declare someone destitute.

Mr. Douglas Hogg: I want to speak to amendment No. 19 in support of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). Producing a report would be extremely valuable because there is no doubt that the two issues with which the report would be concerned are very important, but a report is a report is a report, and it is not enough. I say to my hon. Friend that his amendment should have provided for a debate. If the Bill is debated in another place, there will be an opportunity to provide that the report should be debated.
There are two issues, both of which were touched on by my hon. Friend. The first is that the Bill provides a new form of social support, and it seems to be wholly right that, on a periodic basis, the House—whether this Chamber or another—should debate that. The second and quite different issue is the appalling delay associated with applications by asylum seekers. Incidentally, I admit that the delay is no worse than that for passports. The report would have much greater force if the amendment specified that the Government should provide time for a debate on the report. Although I support the amendment, it does not go far enough, and I hope that if a similar amendment is tabled in another place, it will make provision for a debate so that the House will have to be given an opportunity to discuss issues that I, for one, deem to be important.

Fiona Mactaggart: I want to make a couple of points about amendment No. 30, which relates to the collection and sharing of information. I am concerned about the significant powers in clauses 13 and 14 to collect and pass around information. Clause 13 states that the information may be used for
the prevention, detection, investigation or prosecution of criminal offences",
and
such other purposes as may be specified.
Many asylum seekers are concerned about providing information that may be significant to the determination of their case if they think that there is any risk of its reaching their national authorities, which may, in the past, have treated them as criminals. I am certain that there is no intention to pass on information in a way that might

put an asylum seeker at risk, but we need more clarity about what organisations could receive that information and what controls exist for confidentiality.
I seek an assurance that the Minister shares my concern about confidentiality and that he will speak to the Refugee Legal Centre and the Immigration Law Practitioners Association—I know that he spoke to them during discussions on the Bill—to find out whether public assurance can be given to ensure that asylum seekers feel free to give information. They must feel confident that it will not be used, for example, by being passed through the European criminal detection system in a way that might, if their asylum claim failed, put them at risk in their country of origin.
My second point relates to the amendment in the name of Opposition Members which provides for a report on the length of time in which decisions are made. I am pleased that decision making has been speeded up, although I used figures on current outstanding cases to calculate that, even at the improved rate of decision making and even if there were no extra applications, it could take us two years merely to get through the backlog.
I am pleased that the Minister is putting extra investment into ensuring that the backlog is reduced, but I am concerned that we are seeing a false picture of progress on present decisions. In April, under the announcement that the Minister made some time ago, there was a backlog of 960 cases. The decisions on those cases will be made quickly. In addition, a very large number of them concern Kosovans. The very low number of refusals is an indication of the number of backlog cases and the number of Kosovans. I am concerned to be able to discover the quality of decisions being made.
Rather than using a ritual reporting system, perhaps the Minister can make a couple of statements that would help to reassure us on the progress that is being made on speeding up decisions. The first is some assurance about avoiding the danger of forcing quick decisions on difficult cases once the easy decisions have been made. I am concerned that there might be a risk—I, more than many, have argued for speed—of making a quick and easy decision and leaving the matter to be sorted out on appeal, which may prolong the case for the individual. Will the Minister reassure us about what quality control mechanisms he will be using to ensure that there are no refusals that cannot be justified, which will lead to successful appeals and thereby create delays?
As well as speeding up the average time to make a decision to two months, which is the Minister's target, will he consider managing a system a little like that for health service waiting lists? The right hon. Member for Maidstone and The Weald (Miss Widdecombe) has often repeated the mantra that the length of time, rather than the number of cases waiting, is significant. Will the Minister assure us that if, for example, following the achievement of his target average, a family case up to initial decision takes six months, he will institute some mechanism to ensure that the Home Office's administrative procedures are not adding to the length of such cases? I am sure that such a statement would reassure a number of people about the way the system would work in practice.

Dr. Cable: I should simply like to make a few additional comments on amendment No. 153 and the issue of flexibility. We have already had a very important debate on the principles of vouchers, and the Minister has already said that the regulations will take care of much of the technical detail. I shall ask some specific questions about the principles that will govern the voucher system and its administration.
What principles will govern the determination of which outlets will manage the scheme? This important issue was touched on by the hon. Member for Islington, North (Mr. Corbyn), who asked a question about the supermarket system. When the Home Secretary described what he saw as the integrity of the voucher system, he said that it will work because the people who are given the vouchers are the only ones who can redeem them. That means that supermarket check-out assistants will be the last defence of the voucher system; they will have to enforce it.
I imagine that only the large supermarkets will have the capacity to impose the system. Presumably, therefore, supermarkets will be given a large national captive market as a result of the operation of scheme. Supermarkets are almost certainly the least appropriate outlet for many forms of ethnic cooking, and for the foodstuffs that many refugees will seek. Charity shops are relevant for clothes, but we are talking about food. There is a continuum of possibilities between large supermarket chains and the variety of outlets that are needed for flexibility. Where on that scale will the balance lie? Who will take that decision?
11.30 pm
A second question is: what approach will the Government take to the so-called black market in vouchers? Perhaps as a result of my economist's background, I take a very charitable view of black markets; in many cases, they represent the triumph of the human spirit over bureaucracy. A black market gives flexibility, enabling people to trade their real needs in the market—but how will the Government deal with a black market in vouchers? Will there be strict enforcement? Will the emergence of a black market cause great concern, or will the Government allow flexibility?
The third question concerns the link between vouchers and dispersal. Many communities will be relatively small. One dilemma that I encountered many years ago, when I was in local government and involved in an original dispersal policy for Ugandan Asians in Scotland, was that many of the areas where council housing was available were extremely poorly served by retail outlets. Will a directorate in London decide which shops in Scottish towns are appropriate avenues for the distribution of vouchers?
The system is highly inflexible and highly inequitable. Surely it would be much more sensible to build flexibility into the legislation, by saying that, at certain times, or in certain parts of the country, cash should be used instead of vouchers, to allow flexibility.

Mr. Allan: It emerged in Committee that this business of the package of accommodation seems to suggest that the people in London who are negotiating with shops in Scotland will also have to negotiate with landlords in

Scotland to change light bulbs and do all the other little things around the accommodation that the asylum seekers, unlike everyone else, are not being given cash to cover.

Dr. Cable: I thank my hon. Friend, and conclude by emphasising our basic point. We are not, in this debate, trying to rehearse the basic issues of principle, but we suggest that, now that the Government are proceeding with a voucher system, for their own protection in the long term they must build sufficient flexibility into the law.

Mr. Wardle: Before the Minister responds to the debate, I want to endorse what the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said. She has a long and impressive track record in this field. I emphacise that it is crucial to the efficiency and effectiveness of the asylum screening process that asylum applicants have confidence in the integrity and the confidentiality—the secrecy—of the information gathered and assessed. If they are to impart their knowledge of what is happening in their home country, it is vital that that confidence exist.
My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) alluded to backlogs in the asylum process, as well as at Lunar house generally, because of the attempted switch to information technology. He mentioned the problems in the UK Passport Agency. They are all indicative of a clogged system. If the Minister wishes to introduce fairness to the system, he must persuade the Treasury to spend the money to sweep out the whole queue, so that phoney applicants for asylum are not attracted and do not say, "We can come and there is a queue, so we can stay in the queue." That is the best way to serve the genuine applicants, who have a well-founded fear of persecution under the Geneva convention.

Mr. Mike O'Brien: I shall respond to the points that were raised, although perhaps not in the order in which they were put to me.
First, I give my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) an assurance that I share her anxiety that any information about the identity of an asylum seeker, genuine or not, should not get back to their home country, where it might prejudice their future. Obviously, in some countries, even the simple knowledge that they have claimed asylum may prejudice them. I will therefore speak to the Refugee Legal Centre and others, and discuss how best we can ensure that use of the power does not compromise information that we, too, wish to keep secret.
The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)—rather unfairly, I thought—reprimanded the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) for the inadequacy of his amendment. I do not want to intrude on private grief, but let me defend the hon. Member for Hertsmere. He did very well. He got a commitment from me that we would consider how more information could be brought forward. The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham was extremely unfair to his colleague.
Let me deal with some of the points raised by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). Amendment No. 153 is not needed. There are powers to suspend or repeal the voucher powers in clause 81 (4) and (5). Accordingly, I ask him not to press the amendment to a Division.
We do not intend to force people on their relatives. That would not be practical. Vouchers and cash will be paid at a standard rate. The utility costs will not be met as an addition. We assume that if the relatives are willing to provide accommodation, they will also be willing to meet the marginal extra costs of utilities while the asylum case is considered.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) spoke about the black market in vouchers—

Mr. Gerrard: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. O'Brien: May I not give way? I know that a number of hon. Members want to deal with points in subsequent debates. I have been generous in giving way up to now, and I want to make some progress.
The black market in vouchers is a matter of concern to us. We will discuss with supermarkets how to deal with it. We will need to deal with it during the course of the regulations. I can tell the hon. Member for Twickenham that we want to ensure flexibility.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough asked whether, if a case took longer than six months, we would ask why. Yes, we will want to know why. There will be some cases that take more than six months because there are legal backlogs for various reasons. If the delay is due to some failure on the part of the Immigration and Nationality Directorate, we will want to know that and rectify it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Slough and the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Mr. Wardle) rightly spoke of the need for fast decisions and sustainable decisions. The legal cost of making unsustainable decisions is too great. The hon. Gentleman is also right to say that we need to get the Treasury on board. I am glad to say that we have the Treasury fully on board with regard to the Bill. The Treasury will commit extra resources—more than £100 million—to the IND over the next three years to ensure that we can employ the hundreds of extra staff whom we need to clear the backlog.
I very much agree with the hon. Gentleman that the backlog is a major impediment to creating a system that works. The best deterrent to abuse of the asylum system is fair, sustainable and quick decision making so that people know that if they do not have a right to be in this country, they will quickly be removed.
On the points made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere, the recovery at the IND is slow, but it is sure. Asylum decisions are up. We will hit our output targets by April 2000 and April 2001. The problem is that the IND never recovered from the increase in asylum claims that took place after 1988. By 1991, the number was up to 45,000. Since then, the backlog has grown and the problems have got worse. In our view, the previous Government ignored them. This Government are determined to sort out the mess that we inherited.
The hon. Gentleman mentioned the UK Passport Agency. I shall not dwell on that, but I share his concern about the temporary problems. They are temporary problems—nothing like the situation that we inherited at Croydon. Although the processing of non-urgent applications is taking longer than usual, the Passport Agency is prioritising applications to meet

urgent and declared travel dates. It is meeting travel dates in 99.9 per cent. of cases, and expects to continue to do so throughout the summer. The agency is recruiting 300 extra staff to reduce the arrears. The work is seasonal, and intake falls from July onwards. That fact, and the new staff, will enable the agency to bring turn-around times down to 10 days by September. I hope that that gives some reassurance to hon. Members.
I hope that the Government amendment will be supported and the other amendments in the group will not be pressed.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 17

DUTY TO REPORT SUSPICIOUS MARRIAGES

Amendment made: No. 31, in page 13, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 36.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Clause 18

PROVISION OF FACILITIES FOR IMMIGRATION CONTROL AT PORTS

Amendments made: No. 32, in page 13, line 38, after 'a' insert 'control'.

No. 33, in page 14, line 3, after first 'a' insert 'control'.

No. 34, in page 14, line 6, after first 'a' insert
'control port which is a'.

No. 35, in page 14, line 13, at beginning insert "Control'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Clause 19

DECEPTION

Amendments made: No. 36, in page 14, line 21, leave out from beginning to 'leave' in line 22 and insert—
'(a) he obtains or seeks to obtain'.

No. 37, in page 14, line 23, after '(b)' insert
'he secures or seeks to secure'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Clause 20

FALSE STATEMENTS

Amendment made: No. 38, in page 15, line 10, leave out from beginning to 'or'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Clause 22

CODE OF PRACTICE

Amendment proposed: No. 39, in page 16, line 21, leave out 'may' and insert 'must'.—[Mr. Mike O'Brien.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 9, in page 16, leave out lines 24 to 27 and insert—
'( ) The code shall not come into operation unless a draft of the code has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.
Government amendments Nos. 40 and 41.
No. 11, in clause 24, page 17, line 37, at end insert—
'(8A) If a person on whom a penalty notice is served or who is treated as having had a penalty notice served on him, admits that he is liable for one or more, or all, of the penalties specified in the penalty notice but considers that there are grounds for mitigating all or part of the penalty, he may give written notice of such grounds to the Secretary of State.
(8B) Notice under subsection (8A) ("a notice of grounds of mitigating the penalty") must be given before the end of such period as may be prescribed.
(8C) If a notice of grounds for mitigating the penalty is given before the end of the prescribed period, the Secretary of State must consider such grounds and determine whether to mitigate all or part of the penalty.'.
Government amendments Nos. 42 and 45.

Miss Widdecombe: I thank the Minister for his courtesy in moving the amendment formally. I therefore do not intend to elaborate on amendment No. 9, but I wish to push it to a vote.
Amendment No. 9 simply provides for the laying of the code before the House before the implementation of Government amendment No. 39. Amendment No. 11 provides only for mitigation.

Mr. Hogg: I wish to speak on this amendment, because the code is important. It goes to the heart of whether or not an offence is committed. One sees from the Bill that the onus is cast on the carrier to establish that there has been a good defence. One of the considerations that arise is whether the provisions of the code are satisfied. The code is therefore relevant to whether the carrier can establish a defence. It seems wholly unsatisfactory that a code can be established other than by an affirmative resolution of the House. [Interruption.] I see that the Whip has come to sit in front of me. I am afraid that it makes no difference at all.
We have a right to determine in this House whether matters that are relevant to establishing a defence are debated by this House. I hope, therefore, that the relevant code will indeed be laid before the House and approved only by affirmative resolution. If not, people's legal rights could be affected without a positive vote of this House. I regard that as very unsatisfactory.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment proposed: No. 9, in page 16, leave out lines 24 to 27 and insert—
'( ) The code shall not come into operation unless a draft of the code has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.—[Miss Widdecombe.]

Question put, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 143, Noes 326.

Division No. 211]
[11.44 pm


AYES


Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)
Body, Sir Richard


Allan, Richard
Boswell, Tim


Amess, David
Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)


Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James
Brady, Graham


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Brake, Tom


Baker, Norman
Brazier, Julian


Ballard, Jackie
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Beggs, Roy
Browning, Mrs Angela


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)



Bercow, John
Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)


Beresford, Sir Paul
Burnett, John





Burstow, Paul
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Butterfill, John
McIntosh, Miss Anne


Cable, Dr Vincent
Maclean, Rt Hon David


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
McLoughlin, Patrick



Madel, Sir David


Cash, William
Malins, Humfrey


Chidgey, David
Maude, Rt Hon Francis


Clappison, James
Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
May, Mrs Theresa


Collins, Tim
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)


Cotter, Brian
Moore, Michael


Cran, James
Nicholls, Patrick


Davey, Edward (Kingston)
Norman, Archie


Davies, Quentin (Grantham)
Oaten, Mark


Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)
Öpik, Lembit


Day, Stephen
Ottaway, Richard


Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen
Page, Richard


Duncan Smith, Iain
Paice, James


Evans, Nigel
Paterson, Owen


Faber, David
Pickles, Eric


Fabricant, Michael
Prior, David


Fallon, Michael
Randall, John


Fearn, Ronnie
Redwood, Rt Hon John


Flight, Howard
Rendel, David


Forth, Rt Hon Eric
Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Russell, Bob (Colchester)


Fox, Dr Liam
Sanders, Adrian


Fraser, Christopher
Sayeed, Jonathan


Garnier, Edward
Shepherd, Richard


Gibb, Nick
Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)


Gill, Christopher
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


Gillan, Mrs Cheryl
Spelman, Mrs Caroline


Gorman, Mrs Teresa
Spring, Richard


Gray, James
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Green, Damian
Streeter, Gary


Greenway, John
Stunell, Andrew


Grieve, Dominic
Swayne, Desmond


Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie
Syms, Robert


Hammond, Philip
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Harris, Dr Evan
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Harvey, Nick
Taylor, Sir Teddy


Hawkins, Nick
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas
Tredinnick, David


Horam, John
Tyler, Paul


Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)
Tyrie, Andrew


Hughes, Simon (Southward N)
Viggers, Peter


Hunter, Andrew
Walter, Robert


Jack, Rt Hon Michael
Wardle, Charles


Jackson, Robert (Wantage)
Waterson, Nigel


Jenkin, Bernard
Webb, Steve


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Wells, Bowen


Keetch, Paul
Whitney, Sir Raymond


Kirkwood, Archy
Whittingdale, John


Laing, Mrs Eleanor
Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann


Lansley, Andrew
Willis, Phil


Letwin, Oliver
Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)


Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)


Lidington, David
Young, Rt Hon Sir George


Livsey, Richard



Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Llwyd, Elfyn
Mr. Oliver Heald and


Loughton, Tim
Mrs. Jacqui Lait.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Barron, Kevin


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Battle, John


Ainger, Nick
Bayley, Hugh


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Beard, Nigel


Alexander, Douglas
Begg, Miss Anne


Allen, Graham
Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Bennett, Andrew F


Atkins, Charlotte
Benton, Joe


Barnes, Harry
Berry, Roger






Best, Harold
Efford, Clive


Blackman, Liz
Ellman, Mrs Louise


Blears, Ms Hazel
Ennis, Jeff


Blizzard, Bob
Fisher, Mark


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Fitzpatrick, Jim


Boateng, Paul
Fitzsimons, Lorna


Borrow, David
Flint, Caroline


Bradley, Keith (Withington)
Follett, Barbara


Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)
Foster, Michael J (Worcester)


Bradshaw, Ben
Foulkes, George


Brinton, Mrs Helen
Fyfe, Maria


Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)
Galloway, George


Brown, Russell (Dumfries)
Gapes, Mike


Browne, Desmond
Gardiner, Barby


Buck, Ms Karen
George, Bruce (Walsall S)


Burden, Richard
Gerrard, Neil



Butler, Mrs Christine
Gibson, Dr Ian


Caborn, Rt Hon Richard
Gilroy, Mrs Linda


Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)
Godman, Dr Norman A


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Godsiff, Roger


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Goggins, Paul


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cann, Jamie
Gordon, Mrs Eileen


Caton, Martin
Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)


Cawsey, Ian
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Chaytor, David
Grocott, Bruce


Church, Ms Judith
Grogan, John


Clapham, Michael
Gunnell, John


Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)
Hain, Peter


Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)



Hall, Patrick (Bedford)


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Healey, John


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clelland, David
Hepburn, Stephen


Clwyd, Ann
Heppell, John


Coaker, Vernon
Hesford, Stephen


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Coleman, Iain
Hill, Keith


Colman, Tony
Hinchliffe, David


Connarty, Michael
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Corbett, Robin
Hoey, Kate


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hood, Jimmy


Corston, Ms Jean
Hoon, Geoffrey


Cousins, Jim
Hope, Phil


Cranston, Ross
Hopkins, Kelvin


Crausby, David
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Howells, Dr Kim


Cummings, John
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)



Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire
Humble, Mrs Joan


Dalyell, Tam
Hurst, Alan


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Iddon, Dr Brian


Darvill, Keith
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davidson, Ian
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jamieson, David


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Jenkins, Brian


Dawson, Hilton
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dean, Mrs Janet
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Denham, John




Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Doran, Frank
Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)


Dowd, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Drew, David
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Keeble, Ms Sally


Edwards, Huw
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)





Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)
Primarolo, Dawn


Khabra, Piara S
Prosser, Gwyn


Kidney, David
Purchase, Ken


Kilfoyle, Peter
Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce


King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)
Quinn, Lawrie


Kumar, Dr Ashok
Radice, Giles


Ladyman, Dr Stephen
Rammell, Bill


Lawrence, Ms Jackie
Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)


Laxton, Bob
Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)


Lepper, David



Leslie, Christopher
Roche, Mrs Barbara


Levitt, Tom
Rooker, Jeff


Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)
Rooney, Terry


Linton, Martin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Livingstone, Ken
Rowlands, Ted


Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)
Ruane, Chris


Lock, David

Ruddock, Joan


McAvoy, Thomas
Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)


McCabe, Steve
Ryan, Ms Joan


McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)
Sarwar, Mohammad



Savidge, Malcolm


McDonagh, Siobhain
Sawford, Phil


Macdonald, Calum
Sedgemore, Brian


McDonnell, John
Sheerman, Barry


McGuire, Mrs Anne
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


McIsaac, Shona
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Mackinlay, Andrew
Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)


McNulty, Tony
Skinner, Dennis


Mactaggart, Fiona
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


McWalter, Tony
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


McWilliam, John
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Mallaber, Judy
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Snape, Peter


Marshall-Andrews, Robert
Soley, Clive


Martlew, Eric
Southworth, Ms Helen


Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Spellar, John


Meale, Alan
Squire, Ms Rachel


Merron, Gillian
Steinberg, Gerry


Michael, Rt Hon Alan
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Stinchcombe, Paul


Miller, Andrew
Stoate, Dr Howard


Moffatt, Laura
Stott, Roger


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Moran, Ms Margaret
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)
Stringer, Graham


Morley, Elliot
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Sutcliffe, Gerry


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mountford, Kali



Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Mudie, George
Temple-Morris, Peter


Mullin Chris
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Timms, Stephen


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Tipping, Paddy


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Touhig, Don


Norris, Dan
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Olner, Bill
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


O'Neill, Martin
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Osborne, Ms Sandra
Walley, Ms Joan


Palmer, Dr Nick
Ward, Ms Claire


Pearson, Ian
Wareing, Robert N


Pendry, Tom
Watts, David


Pickthall, Colin
White, Brian


Pike, Peter L
Whitehead, Dr Alan



Plaskitt, James
Wicks, Malcolm


Pond, Chris
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Pope, Greg



Powell, Sir Raymond
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)



Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)







Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)
Woolas, Phil


Wills, Michael
Worthington, Tony


Winnick, David
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)
Tellers for the Noes:


Wise, Audrey
Mr. David Hanson and


Wood, Mike
Mr. Clive Betts.

Question accordingly negatived.

It being Twelve o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER proceeded, pursuant to Order [15 June], to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour.

Clause 23

DEFENCES TO CLAIM THAT PENALTY IS DUE UNDER SECTION 21

Amendment made: No. 40, in page 17, line 2, leave out 'any' and insert 'the'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 24

PROCEDURE

Amendment made: No. 41, in page 17, line 18, after 'steps' insert '—

(i) that P must take if he objects to the penalty;
(ii)". —[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 26

EFFECT OF DETENTION

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 18, line 39, leave out '56' and insert '84'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 28

CHARGES IN RESPECT OF PASSENGERS WITHOUT PROPER DOCUMENTS

Amendments made: No. 43, in page 20, line 39, at end insert—

'(4A) No charge is payable by a train operator, or by the owner of a road passenger vehicle, in respect of a person ("A"), if he shows that—

(a) he had in place satisfactory arrangements (including, where appropriate, arrangements with other persons) designed to ensure that he did not carry passengers who did not, or might not, have documents of the required kind;
(b) all such steps as were practicable were taken in accordance with the arrangements to establish whether A had the required document or documents; and
(c) all such steps as were practicable were taken in accordance with the arrangements to prevent A's arrival in the United Kingdom where—

(i) A refused to produce the required document or documents to a person acting in accordance with the arrangements; or
(ii) for other reasons it appeared to that person that A did not, or might not, have the required document or documents.

No. 44, in page 20, line 40, leave out 'this section' and insert 'subsections (4) and (4A)'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 30

POWER TO DETAIN VEHICLES ETC. IN CONNECTION WITH CHARGES UNDER SECTION 28

Amendments made: No. 45, in page 22, line 15, leave out '56' and insert—'84'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 31

INTERPRETATION OF PART II

Amendments made: No. 46, in page 22, line 26, at end insert—
'"aircraft" includes hovercraft;'.

No. 47, in page 22, line 31, after 'Wales,' insert 'the county court or'.

No. 48, in page 22, line 32, after 'Scotland,' insert 'the sheriff or'.

No. 49, in page 22, line 33, after 'Ireland,' insert 'the county court or'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 43

ADJUDICATORS

Amendment made: No. 50, in page 30, line 7, leave out from beginning to end of line 11.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 55

CLAIMS FOR ASYLUM

Amendments made: No. 51, in page 36, line 7, leave out 'a special' and insert 'an'.

No. 52, in page 36, line 13, after second 'decision' insert 'to an adjudicator'.

No. 53, in page 36, line 21, leave out 'a special' and insert 'an'.

No. 54, in page 36, line 28, leave out 'a special' and insert 'an'.

No. 55, in page 36, line 32, leave out 'a special' and insert 'an'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 57

REMOVAL OF ASYLUM CLAIMANTS TO SAFE THIRD COUNTRIES

Amendments made: No. 56, in page 37, line 38, leave out
'2 of the Asylum and Immigration Act 1996'
and insert
'(Removal of asylum claimants under standing arrangements with member States) or (Removal of asylum claimants in other circumstances)'.

No. 57, in page 37, line 41, leave out 'a special' and insert 'an'.

No. 58, in page 37, line 42, leave out from beginning to 'was' in line 43 and insert
'applicable to that certificate was not satisfied when it'—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 58

MISCELLANEOUS LIMITATIONS ON RIGHTS OF APPEAL

Amendments made: No. 59, in page 38, line 2, leave out from beginning to first 'the' in line 3 and insert
'Unless a certificate issued under section (Removal of asylum claimants under standing arrangements with member States) or (Removal of asylum claimants in other circumstances) has been set aside on an appeal under section 51 or 57 or otherwise ceases to have effect,'.

No. 60, in page 38, line 6, leave out from beginning to end of line 8 and insert—

'(2) A person who has been, or is to be, sent to a member State or to a country designated under section (Removal of asylum claimants in other circumstances)(1)(b) is not, while he is in the United Kingdom, entitled to appeal—

(a) under section 51 if the Secretary of State certifies that his allegation that a person acted in breach of his human rights is manifestly unfounded; or
(b) under section 57:'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 60

DUTY TO DISCLOSE GROUNDS FOR APPEAL

Amendments made: No. 61, in page 39, line 10, leave out 'has a right of' and insert
', while he is in the United Kingdom, is entitled to'.

No. 62, in page 39, line 17, leave out 'has a right of' and insert 'is entitled to'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 62

"ONE-STOP" APPEALS: ASYLUM CLAIMS

Amendments made: No. 63, in page 40, line 27, leave out 'special'.

No. 64, in page 40, line 34, leave out 'special'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 63

"ONE-STOP" APPEALS: OTHER CASES

Amendments made: No. 65, in page 41, line 1, leave out from 'against' to end of line 2 and insert '—

(a) a decision to refuse an application for leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom;
(b) a decision to vary, or to refuse to vary, any limited leave to enter or remain in the United Kingdom, which has the result mentioned in section 60(2)(a).

No. 66, in page 41, line 5, leave out from 'decision' to '; and' in line 6.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 64

TRANSFER Of APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS

Amendment made: No. 67, in page 41, line 31, leave out from beginning to end of line 35.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 69

PROVISION OF IMMIGRATION SERVICES

Amendment made: No. 68, in page 45, line 25, leave out from beginning to end of line 27.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 80

PERSONS FOR WHOM SUPPORT MAY BE PROVIDED

Amendment made: No. 69, in page 52, line 42, at end insert—
'(12) Schedule (Asylum Support: interim provisions) makes temporary provision for support in the period before the coming into force of this section.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 83

SECRETARY OF STATE'S SCHEME

Amendment made: No. 70, in page 54, line 45, at end insert
'(including circumstances in which the Secretary of State would otherwise be under a duty to provide support).'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 101

EXCLUSION FROM BENEFITS

Amendments made: No. 71, in page 62, line 42, leave out 'an EEA national' and insert
'a national of an EEA State'.

No. 72, in page 63, line 7, leave out beginning to end of line 9.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 108

THE CHILDREN ACTS

Amendment made: No. 3, in page 66, line 29, leave out clause 108.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 118

ENTRY AND SEARCH OF PREMISES FOLLOWING ARREST

Amendment made: No. 74, in page 74, line 34, leave out from beginning to end of line 42.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 120

SEARCHING ARRESTED PERSONS

Amendments made: No. 75, in page 76, line 17, leave out
', glove, footwear or headgear'
and insert 'or glove'.

No. 76, in page 77, line 9, leave out
', glove, footwear or headgear'
and insert 'or glove'.

No. 77, in page 77, line 26, leave out from beginning to end of line 33.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 124

EXECUTION OF WARRANTS

Amendments made: No. 78, in page 84, line 6, at end insert—
'(bb) if issued by a justice of the peace in Scotland, to the clerk of the district court for the commission area for which the justice of the peace was appointed;'.

No. 79, in page 84, line 8, leave out 'or (b)' and insert
'must be retained for 12 months by the justices'
chief executive.

(10A) A warrant issued under subsection (9)(b) or (bb)'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 125

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 80, in page 84, line 28, at end insert—
'( ) In the 1971 Act, in Schedule 2, after paragraph 25D insert—
25E. Section 28L applies for the purposes of this Schedule as it applies for the purposes of Part III."'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 127

FINGERPRINTING

Amendments made: No. 81, in page 85, line 26, after 'officer' insert
'on his arrival in the United Kingdom'.

No. 82, in page 86, line 20, at end insert—
'( ) No fingerprints shall be taken from A if the immigration officer considers that A has a reasonable excuse for the failure concerned.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 134

CONTRACTING OUT OF CERTAIN DETENTION CENTRES

Amendment made: No. 83, in page 90, line 4 at end insert';

(g) section 14 of the Conveyancing Act 1881;

(h) the Conveyancing and Law of Property Act 1892;

the Business Tenancies (Northern Ireland) Order 1996.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 144

ABOLITION OF CERTIFICATE BY LICENCE

Amendments made: No. 84, in page 94, line 36, leave out '"twenty-one" substitute "15"' and insert
'"said period of twenty-one days" substitute "waiting period in relation to each notice of marriage"'.

No. 85, in page 94, line 37, at end insert—
'( ) In section 31 of the 1949 Act, after subsection (4) insert—

"(4A) "The waiting period", in relation to a notice of marriage, means—

(a) the period of 15 days, or
(b) such shorter period as may be determined by the Registrar General under subsection (5A) or by a superintendent registrar under any provision of regulations made under subsection (5D),

after the day on which the notice of marriage was entered in the marriage notice book.'".

No. 86, in page 95, line 2, leave out ',(2) and (4)' and insert 'and (2)'.

No. 87, in page 95, line 4, leave out 'references' and insert 'reference'.

No. 88, in page 95, line 4, leave out '75(2)(d) and (3)(a) are' and insert '75(3)(a) is'.

No. 89, in page 95, line 5, leave out 'references' and insert 'a reference'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 149

REGULATIONS AND ORDERS

Amendments made: No. 90, in page 98, line 32, after '82(3),' insert—
'( ) section 130,'.

No. 91, in page 98, line 35, at end insert—

'(3A) No regulations are to be made under—

(a) section (Treatment of certain overstayers), or
(b) section 60(3),

unless a draft of the regulations has been laid before Parliament and approved by a resolution of each House.'.

No. 92, in page 98, line 37, after '(3)' insert 'or (3A)'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 150

INTERPRETATION

Amendments made: No. 93, in page 99, line 9, at end insert—
' "EEA State" means a State which is a Contracting Party to the Agreement on the European Economic Area signed at Oporto on 2nd May 1992 as it has effect for the time being;'.

No. 94, in page 99, line 32, at end insert—
' "port";'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Clause 153

SHORT TITLE, COMMENCEMENT AND EXTENT

Amendments made: No. 95, in page 100, line 5, at end insert—
'(1A) Section 80(1) comes into force on such day as the Secretary of State may by order appoint and section 101 comes into force with it.'.

No. 96, in page 100, line 8, after 'Act' insert
', except section 7 and paragraph 6 of Schedule 13 (which come into force in accordance with section (Treatment of certain overstayers)),'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

New Schedule 1

ASYLUM SUPPORT:INTERIM PROVISIONS

Support before the appointed day

1.—(1) The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision requiring prescribed local authorities to provide support, during the interim period, to asylum-seekers and their dependants who are destitute.

(2) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (1), in Northern Ireland, a Health and Social Services Board established under Article 16 of the Health and Personal Social Services (Northern Ireland) Order 1972 is to be treated as a local authority.

2. The regulations must provide for the question whether a person is destitute to be determined by the local authority concerned.

3. Subsections (3) and (5) to (8) of section 80 apply for the purposes of the regulations as they apply for the purposes of that section, but for the references in subsections (5) and (7) to the Secretary of State substitute references to the local authority concerned.

4. The regulations may prescribe circumstances in which support for a destitute person—

(a) must be provided; or
(b) must or may be refused.

5. The regulations may provide that support—

(a) is to be provided in prescribed ways;
(b) is not to be provided in prescribed ways.

6. The regulations may make provision for—

(a) the determination by the Secretary of State of the maximum number of asylum-seekers to whom a local authority is required under the regulations to provide support; and
(b) the referral by one local authority to another of a claim for support made to it under the regulations if the referring authority is providing support to a number of asylum-seekers in excess of that maximum number.

7.—(1) The regulations may make provision for the referral of a claim for support made to the Secretary of State to such prescribed local authority as he may specify in a direction.

(2) A direction may not specify a local authority which is providing support to a number of asylum-seekers in excess of the maximum number determined in accordance with provision made by virtue of paragraph 6(a).

(3) The regulations may make provision for the payment by the Secretary of State of any reasonable travel or subsistence expenses incurred as a result of a referral made by him as a result of provision made by virtue of sub-paragraph (1).

8. The regulations may make provision requiring prescribed local authorities or other prescribed bodies to give reasonable assistance to local authorities providing support under the regulations.

9. The regulations may make provision for the procedure for making and determining claims for support.

10. The regulations may make provision for a person who has received, or is receiving, support from a local authority under any other prescribed enactment to be taken to have been accepted for support under the regulations by a prescribed local authority.

11. A person entitled to claim support under the regulations is not entitled to claim support under any other prescribed enactment.

Definitions

12. "The appointed day" means the day appointed under section 153(1A).

13. "The interim period" means the period beginning with day on which paragraph 1 comes into force and ending on the appointed day.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Schedule 2

THE IMMIGRATION APPEAL TRIBUNAL

Amendments made: No. 97, in page 102, line 6, after 'of' insert
'legally qualified members and of other'.

No. 98, in page 102, line 8, leave out 'qualified for appointment only' and insert 'legally qualified'.

No. 99, in page 102, line 15, after 'one' insert 'legally qualified'.

No. 100, in page 102, line 16, after 'another' insert 'such'.

No. 101, in page 103, line 1, leave out from beginning to end of line 4 and insert—
'( ) The jurisdiction of the Tribunal may be exercised by such number of members as the President may direct.
( ) A direction may be given in relation to a specified case or category of case.
( ) A specified number of members may include a specified number of legally qualified members.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Schedule 3

ADJUDICATORS

Amendments made: No. 102, in page 103, line 16, at end insert—
'Deputy Chief Adjudicator and Regional Adjudicators

.—(1) The Lord Chancellor may appoint one of the adjudicators as Deputy Chief Adjudicator.

(2) The Lord Chancellor may appoint as Regional Adjudicators such number of the adjudicators as he may determine.

(3) A person appointed under cub-paragraph (1) or (2) is to have such functions as the Chief Adjudicator may assign to him.

(4) If the Chief Adjudicator is temporarily absent or otherwise unable to act, the Deputy Chief Adjudicator may act on his behalf.'.

No. 103, in page 103, line 16, at end insert—

'Qualification for appointment

. A person is qualified for appointment as an adjudicator only if—

(a) he has a 7 year general qualification, within the meaning of section 71 of the Courts and Legal Services Act 1990;
(b) he is an advocate or solicitor in Scotland of at least 7 years' standing; or
(c) he is a member of the Bar of Northern Ireland or solicitor of the Supreme Court of Northern Ireland of at least 7 years' standing.'.

No. 104, in page 103, line 42, at end insert—
'( ) The Chief Adjudicator may direct that, in a specified case or category of case, an appeal to an adjudicator is to be heard by such number of adjudicators as may be specified.
( ) "Specified" means specified in the direction.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Schedule 4

APPEALS

Amendments made: No. 105, in page 104, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 32.

No. 106, in page 105, line 24, at end insert—
'( ) In this Schedule "rules" means rules under this paragraph.'.

No. 107, in page 105, line 24, at end insert—

'Practice directions

.—(1) The President of the Tribunal may give directions as to the practice and procedure to be followed by the Tribunal in relation to appeals and applications to it.

(2) The Chief Adjudicator may give directions as to the practice and procedure to be followed by adjudicators in relation to appeals and applications to them.'.

No. 108, in page 106, line 8, leave out from beginning to end of line 12.

No. 109, in page 106, line 14, leave out
'on any of the grounds mentioned in subsections (1) to (5) of'
and insert 'under'.

No. 110, in page 106, line 19, leave out 'or (4)' and insert
', (4), (4A) or (4B)'.

No. 111, in page 106, line 21, leave out 'special'.

No. 112, in page 106, line 30, after 'claim' insert 'under the Refugee Convention'.

No. 113, in page 106, line 35, at end insert—

'(4A) This sub-paragraph applies to a claim under the Human Rights Convention if—

(a) it does not disclose a right under the Convention; or
(b) it does disclose a right under the Convention, but the claim is manifestly unfounded.

(4B) This sub-paragraph applies to a claim if—'

No. 114, in page 107, line 2, leave out from 'under' to end of line 6 and insert
'the Refugee Convention or the Human Rights Convention'.

No. 115, in page 109, line 10, after second 'appeal' insert
'other than an appeal under section 57'.

No. 116, in page 109, line 45, leave out '(1)(d)' and insert '(1)(c)'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Schedule 9

DETAINEE CUSTODY OFFICERS

Amendment made: No. 117, in page 122, line 5, leave out
', glove, headgear or footwear'
and insert 'or glove'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Schedule 11

ESCORT ARRANGEMENTS

Amendment made: No. 118, in page 126, line 18, leave out
', glove, headgear or footwear'
and insert 'or glove'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Schedule 12

CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 119, in page 127, line 30, leave out 'and'.

No. 120, in page 127, line 31, at end insert
'; and
( ) in subsection (6), for "either" substitute "each".'.

No. 121, in page 129, line 10, at end insert—
'( )In subsection (3), for "twenty-one" substitute "15".'.

No. 122, in page 130, line 5, leave out from second 'for' to end of line 6 and insert
'from "(not being" to "book" substitute "before the expiry of the waiting period in relation to each notice of marriage";'.

No. 123, in page 130, line 8, at end insert—
'( ) After subsection (2), insert—
(2A) In subsection (2)(d) "the waiting period" has the same meaning as in section 31(4A)."'.

No. 124, in page 132, line 15, leave out 'did not have' and insert 'had'.

No. 125, in page 133, line 36, leave out from 'in' to end of line 38 and insert
'order to provide accommodation under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999'.

No. 126, in page 134, line 21, leave out from beginning to end of line 22 and insert—
'power, or under an arrangement, to provide accommodation under Part VI of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

( ) A tenancy mentioned in sub-paragraph (1) becomes a secure tenancy if the landlord notifies the tenant that it is to be regarded as a secure tenancy." '.

No. 127, in page 134, line 35, after 'asylum—seekers' insert 'or dependants of asylum—seekers'.

No. 128, in page 135, line 3, after 'asylum—seekers' insert 'or dependants of asylum—seekers'.

No. 129, in page 135, line 37, at end insert—
'The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 (c. 41)

.—(1) The Courts and Legal Services Act 1990 is amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 10 (judicial and other appointments), omit paragraph 34.

No. 130, in page 136, line 16, at end insert—
'The Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 (c. 8)

.—(1) The Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993 is amended as follows.

(2) In Schedule 1 (offices which may be qualifying judicial offices), in Part II, for "Chief, or any other, immigration adjudicator under the Immigration Act 1971" substitute "Immigration Adjudicator".

(3) In Schedule 6 (retirement date for certain judicial offices), omit paragraphs 37 and 38.'.

No. 131, in page 136, line 19, leave out from beginning to end of line and insert—
'. Omit section 3 (fingerprinting).
. Omit sections 4 and 5 and Schedule 1 (housing of asylum—seekers and their dependants).
. Omit section 7 (curtailment of leave).
. Omit sections 8, 9, 10 and 11 and Schedule 2(which relate to appeals).'.

No. 132, in page 136, line 27, leave out from beginning to end of line 28 and insert—
'. Omit section 12 (carriers' liability).'.

No. 133, in page 136, line 30, leave out from beginning to end of line 32 and insert—
'. The Asylum and Immigration Act 1996 is amended as follows.
. Omit section 7 (power of arrest and search warrants).
. Omit section 9 (entitlement to housing accommodation and assistance).
. Omit section 10 (entitlement to child benefit).
. Omit section 11 (saving for social security regulations).
. Omit Schedule 1 (modifications of social security regulations).
. In Schedule 2, omit sub-paragraphs (2) and (3) of paragraph 1, paragraph 3 and paragraph 4(2) (which are spent as a result of this Act).
. In Schedule 3, omit paragraphs 1, 2 and 5 (which are spent as a result of this Act).'.

No. 134, in page 137, line 14, leave out 'a special' and insert 'an'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Schedule 13

TRANSITIONAL PROVISIONS AND SAVINGS

Amendments made: No. 135, in page 139, line 8, after '28K(9)(a)' insert 'and (10)'.

No. 136, in page 139, line 18, leave out from beginning to end of line 26.

No. 137, in page 139, line 28, at beginning insert
'Section 15 of the 1971 Act,'.

No. 138, in page 139, line 31, leave out
'that section by this Act'
and insert 'those sections'.

No. 139, in page 139, line 31, at end insert—

'6.—(l) Sub—paragraph (2) applies if, on the coming into force of section 7, sections 15 of the 1971 Act and 5 of the Immigration Act 1988 have been repealed by this Act.

(2) Those sections are to continue to have effect in relation to any person—

(a) who applied during the regularisation period prescribed under section (Treatment of certain overstayers), in accordance with the regulations made under that section, for leave to remain in the United Kingdom, and
(b) on whom the Secretary of State has since served a notice of his decision to make a deportation order.'.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Schedule 14

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 140, in page 141, line 21, at end insert—

'1993 c. 8.
The Judicial Pensions and Retirement Act 1993.
In Schedule 6, paragraphs 37 and 38.'.

No. 141, in page 141, line 33, column 3, at end insert—
'Section 2.
Section 3.'.

No. 142, in page 141, line 49, at end insert—

'1997 c. 68.
The Special
Section 7(4).



Immigration Appeals Commission Act 1997.
In Schedule 2, paragraph 5.'.

—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—[Mr. Mike Hall.]

The House divided: Ayes 310, Noes 41.

Division No. 212]
[12.2 am


AYES


Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)
Borrow, David


Ainger, Nick
Bradley, Keith (Withington)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)


Alexander, Douglas
Bradshaw, Ben


Allen, Graham
Brinton, Mrs Helen


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Brown, Rt Hon Nick (Newcastle E)


Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)
Brown, Russell (Dumfries)


Atherton, Ms Candy
Browne, Desmond


Atkins, Charlotte
Buck, Ms Karen


Barron, Kevin
Burden, Richard


Battle, John
Butler, Mrs Christine


Bayley, Hugh
Caborn, Rt Hon Richard


Beard, Nigel
Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)


Begg, Miss Anne
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Bennett, Andrew F
Campbell—Savours, Dale


Benton, Joe
Cann, Jamie


Berry, Roger
Caton, Martin


Best, Harold
Cawsey, Ian


Blackman, Liz
Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)


Blears, Ms Hazel
Chaytor, David


Blizzard, Bob
Church, Ms Judith


Blunkett, Rt Hon David
Clapham, Michael


Boateng, Paul
Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)





Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)
Heal, Mrs Sylvia



Healey, John


Clark, Paul (Gillingham)
Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)


Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)
Hepburn, Stephen


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Heppell, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)
Hesford, Stephen


Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)
Hewitt, Ms Patricia


Clelland, David
Hill, Keith


Coaker, Vernon
Hinchliffe, David


Coffey, Ms Ann
Hodge, Ms Margaret


Colman, Tony
Hoey, Kate


Connarty, Michael
Hood, Jimmy


Corbett, Robin
Hoon, Geoffrey


Corston, Ms Jean
Hope, Phil


Cousins, Jim
Hopkins, Kelvin


Cranston, Ross
Howarth, Alan (Newport E)


Crausby, David
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)
Howells, Dr Kim


Cryer, John (Hornchurch)
Hoyle, Lindsay


Cummings, John
Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)



Humble, Mrs Joan


Curtis—Thomas, Mrs Claire
Hurst, Alan


Dalyell, Tam
Iddon, Dr Brian


Darling, Rt Hon Alistair
Ingram, Rt Hon Adam


Darvill, Keith
Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)


Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)
Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)


Davidson, Ian
Jamieson, David


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Jenkins, Brian


Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)
Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)


Dawson, Hilton
Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)


Dean, Mrs Janet



Denham, John
Jones, Barry (Alyn & Deeside)


Dismore, Andrew
Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)


Dobbin, Jim
Jones, Helen (Warrington N)


Dobson, Rt Hon Frank
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Donohoe, Brian H
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)


Doran, Frank
Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa


Dowd, Jim
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Drew, David
Keeble, Ms Sally


Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)
Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)


Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)
Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)


Edwards, Huw
Khabra, Piara S


Efford, Clive
Kidney, David



Ellman, Mrs Louise
Kilfoyle, Peter


Ennis, Jeff
King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)


Fisher, Mark
Kumar, Dr Ashok


Fitzpatrick, Jim
Ladyman, Dr Stephen


Fitzsimons, Lorna
Lawrence, Ms Jackie


Flint, Caroline
Laxton, Bob


Follett, Barbara
Lepper, David


Foster, Michael J (Worcester)
Leslie, Christopher


Foulkes, George
Levitt, Tom


Fyfe, Maria
Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)


Galloway, George
Linton, Martin


Gapes, Mike
Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)


Gardiner, Barry
Lock, David


George, Bruce (Walsall S)
McAvoy, Thomas


Gibson, Dr Ian
McCabe, Steve


Gilroy, Mrs Linda
McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)


Godman, Dr Norman A



Godsiff, Roger
McDonagh, Siobhain


Goggins, Paul
Macdonald, Calum


Golding, Mrs Llin
McGuire, Mrs Anne


Gordon, Mrs Eileen
McIsaac, Shona


Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)
Mackinlay, Andrew


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McNulty, Tony


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Mactaggart, Fiona


Grocott, Bruce
McWalter, Tony


Grogan, John
McWilliam, John


Gunnell, John
Mallaber, Judy


Hain, Peter
Mandelson, Rt Hon Peter


Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)
Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)


Hall, Patrick (Bedford)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)
Marshall—Andrews, Robert


Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet
Martlew, Eric






Meacher, Rt Hon Michael
Sheerman, Barry


Meale, Alan
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Merron, Gillian
Short, Rt Hon Clare


Michael, Rt Hon Alun
Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)


Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)
Smith, Angela (Basildon)


Milburn, Rt Hon Alan
Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)


Moffatt, Laura
Smith, John (Glamorgan)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Moran, Ms Margaret
Snape, Peter


Morley, Elliot
Soley, Clive


Morris, Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Southworth, Ms Helen


Morris, Rt Hon John (Aberavon)
Spellar, John


Mountford, Kali
Squire, Ms Rachel


Mowlam, Rt Hon Marjorie
Steinberg, Gerry


Mudie, George
Stewart, David (Inverness E)


Mullin, Chris
Stewart, Ian (Eccles)


Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)
Stinchcombe, Paul


Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)
Stoate, Dr Howard


Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)
Stott, Roger


Naysmith, Dr Doug
Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin


Norris, Dan
Straw, Rt Hon Jack


O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)
Stringer, Graham


O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)
Stuart, Ms Gisela


Olner, Bill
Sutcliffe, Gerry


O'Neill, Martin
Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Osborne, Ms Sandra



Palmer, Dr Nick
Taylor, Ms Dari (Stockton S)


Pearson, Ian
Temple—Morris, Peter


Pendry, Tom
Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)


Pickthall, Colin
Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)


Pike, Peter L
Timms, Stephen


Plaskitt, James
Tipping, Paddy


Pond, Chris
Touhig, Don


Pope, Greg
Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)


Powell, Sir Raymond
Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)
Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Twigg, Derek (Halton)


Primarolo, Dawn
Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)


Prosser, Gwyn
Walley, Ms Joan


Purchase, Ken
Ward, Ms Claire


Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce
Wareing, Robert N


Quinn, Lawrie
Watts, David


Radice, Giles
White, Brian


Rammell, Bill
Whitehead, Dr Alan


Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)
Wicks, Malcolm


Robertson, Rt Hon George (Hamilton S)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)


Roche, Mrs Barbara
Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)


Rooker, Jeff
Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)


Rooney, Terry
Wills, Michael


Rooney, Terry
Winnick, David


Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)
Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)


Rowlands, Ted
Wise, Audrey


Ruane, Chris
Woolas, Phil


Ruddock, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)
Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)


Ryan, Ms Joan



Sarwar, Mohammad
Tellers for the Ayes:


Savidge, Malcolm
Mr. David Hanson and


Sawfort, Phil
Mr. Clive Betts.




NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Chidgey, David


Allan, Richard
Corbyn, Jeremy


Baker, Norman
Cotter, Brian


Ballard, Jackie
Davey, Edward (Kingston)


Beith, Rt Hon A J
Fearn, Ronnie


Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)
Gerrard, Neil


Brake, Tom
Harvey, Nick


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)


Burnett, John
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Burstow, Paul
Keetch, Paul


Cable, Dr Vincent
Kirkwood, Archy


Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)
Livingstone, Ken



Livsey, Richard





Llwyd, Elfyn
Smith, Sir Robert (W Ab'd'ns)


McDonnell, John
Stunell, Andrew


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll & Bute)
Tonge, Dr Jenny


Moore, Michael
Tyler, Paul


Oaten, Mark
Webb, Steve


Öpik, Lembit
Willis, Phil


Rendel, David



Russell, Bob (Colchester)
Tellers for the Noes:


Sanders, Adrian
Dr. Evan Harris and


Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)
Mr. Don Foster.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Mr. Hogg: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. May I raise with you the consequences of the guillotine motion that has been applied? You will appreciate that there remain outstanding eight groups of amendments; the last group of amendments, relating to the code of practice, were debated in about one minute; moreover, there was no debate on Third Reading. The cause of all that was the guillotine motion. The result is that a substantial part of the Bill has not been debated on Report. I recognise that you are bound by the guillotine motion and that I cannot complain about that. However, I can point out—and I do point out—that one of the reasons why time was eroded was that, yesterday, a statement on the London underground was made by the Deputy Prime Minister—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is an experienced Member of Parliament and I think that he recognises that the answer to his point of order lies in what he has already said. The Chair is indeed bound by the terms of yesterday's guillotine motion, as is the House. What he has said so far is a matter of comment and debate, which should have been said at the time of the guillotine motion. It is not a matter for me.

Mr. Hogg: I am coming to my substantive point. I was laying the background. One reason why the debate has been truncated tonight is the statement that the Deputy Prime Minister made yesterday about the London underground. The practice is for a Minister to inform the Speaker of his intention to make a statement. The consent of the Speaker is not required, even though the Minister always begins with the phrase, "With permission, Madam Speaker". However, it is within the discretion of the Speaker to seek to dissuade the Minister. Furthermore, it is certainly within the discretion of the Speaker to ensure that the question and answer session that follows is kept very short. My point of order is that when there is a guillotine motion the Speaker should seek to ensure that there is not—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Gentleman should resume his seat when I have risen to my feet. He is getting dangerously close to criticising the decision of the Chair. If there was a moment to do that it was yesterday, not now.

Mr. Hogg: rose
—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that I have heard sufficient in two bursts from the right hon. and learned Gentleman to know that this is not a matter on which I can rule now. It relates to the decision of the Chair that


was taken yesterday. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to pursue that matter, it will have to be on a substantive motion criticising the Chair.

Mr. Hogg: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am not in any way criticising the Speaker. I am bringing a point to your attention so that you can have an opportunity to discuss it with Madam Speaker. When there is a guillotine motion that constrains debate, the Speaker should seek to consider whether—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. There is little that I can add to the point of order that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is seeking to make, because he is implicitly criticising the decision taken by the Chair yesterday. The Speaker must be presumed to be aware of all the relevant matters. If an hon. Member wishes later to challenge a decision taken by the Speaker, it must be done on a substantive motion.

Miss Widdecombe: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I acknowledge that the Government went to considerable lengths this evening to ensure that we had a vote on amendment No. 9, but that was achieved only by sacrificing any debate on an important subject. There were other important issues to be debated on Report, as well as a tranche of other matters that could have been addressed on Third Reading but were not scheduled for debate on Report. Those subjects were guillotined out of debate not as a result of any lack of progress on the Immigration and Asylum Bill, which was conducted in an exemplary manner, but because of a perceived lack of progress on another Bill. As the guardian of Back-Bench rights and the rights of debate, does the Chair have a view, or will you be taking a view, on the use of a guillotine to curtail not the debate in question, but a separate debate?

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The question whether there is a guillotine and the terms of it are not a matter for the Chair. It is a matter for debate on the substantive motion put down by the Government and the decision of the House on it.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): With permission, I shall put together the motions relating to delegated legislation.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

CONSTITUTIONAL LAW

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Transfer of Functions to the Scottish Ministers etc.) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Schedules 4 and 5) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Modification of Functions) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Functions Exercisable in or as Regards Scotland) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Cross-Border Public Authorities) (Adaptation of Functions etc.) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Consequential Modifications) (No. 2) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.

That the draft Scotland Act 1998 (Border Rivers) Order 1999, which was laid before this House on 26th May, be approved.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Question agreed to.

PETITION

Medicines Control Agency

Mr. Brian Cotter: I present a petition on behalf of 682 constituents. The petitioners request that the House of Commons urge the Department of Health to reconsider its proposals regarding the Medicines Control Agency and introduce an
immediate moratorium preventing the MCA from declaring these safe products to be medicines, except on grounds of illegal claims or safety, and, further, to introduce new legislation appropriate to the special needs of safe natural health products.

To lie upon the Table.

Flooding (Lewes)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Clelland.]

Mr. Norman Baker: I welcome the opportunity to raise the problems of flooding in my constituency and especially in Seaford. Each problem is different, but there is a common thread: lines of responsibility are not clear, so action that everyone agrees should be taken is left undone. My central call to the Government will be: please acknowledge the problem; please undertake to rectify it; and, in the meantime, please knock some heads together to ensure that the very real problems are not allowed to drag on any further.

Mr. Lembit Öpik: Is my hon. Friend aware that we have also had serious flooding problems in Montgomeryshire? Does he accept that the issues that he is raising call for a strategy across the United Kingdom, including Wales?

Mr. Baker: I certainly agree that we need a national strategy.
Let me deal first with the problems in Cliffe high street, Lewes, which is one of the town's main shopping streets. Regular flooding occurs, with water invading private properties and the church of St. Thomas à Becket, the oldest church in the historic town. The cause is an ancient culvert that has silted up and for which no body will accept responsibility.
I have had sight of correspondence initiated by my constituent Mary Chandler, who is church warden at St. Thomas à Becket. It will be instructive to run through it. In October 1993, she wrote to the highway authority, East Sussex county council, after flooding to the church had occurred. It told her a month later, having investigated the matter, that it was the responsibility of the National Rivers Authority—which has now been superseded by the Environment Agency—and its agent, Lewes district council.
In December 1993, Lewes district council wrote to say that the county council was wrong and it was a matter of surface water drainage, which is the responsibility of Southern Water. Sensibly, my constituent suggested that the NRA, Southern Water and the two councils should get together to sort the matter out. No such meeting took place at that point, but, throughout 1994, the church continued to flood, the NRA continued to maintain that it was a matter for Southern Water, and Southern Water continued to maintain that the culvert was not a public service water sewer and therefore not maintainable at its expense, suggesting that the district council use its powers under the Land Drainage Act 1991 and the Public Health Act 1936.
By May 1995, the district council was suggesting that it might be a matter for the riparian owner. The various bodies were by now talking to each other and some without prejudice work had been done by both the county council, in respect of the culvert, and the NRA, in respect of the discharge point into the River Ouse; but the church was still flooding.
By the beginning of 1997, the Environment Agency and the two councils had appeared to conclude that Southern Water was responsible, and I understand that a letter to

that effect was sent by the agency to the company on 17 April 1997; but the position was not accepted by Southern Water in its reply of 25 July. Meanwhile, the church flooded again on 23 June and on 8 October 1997.
Some basic work was done on 9 October by Southern Water to alleviate the problem. Meanwhile, Ofwat had been dragged into the matter and declared that it was unable to resolve the issue. The matter was brought to my attention on 4 July 1998, when Mary Chandler attended one of my surgeries. I immediately wrote to the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and received a reply from the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale), offering sympathy and telling me that there was a difference of opinion between Southern Water and the Environment Agency. I think that I had already worked that one out.
The two sides met again shortly after the Minister's letter and agreed on a closed circuit television survey of the channel in principle, but they could not agree who should pay for it. Meanwhile, the church continued to flood, including on Christmas day 1998.
I then tried writing to the chairman of the Environment Agency, Lord De Ramsay, who, in his reply dated 25 February this year, gave me some interesting and useful information about the history of the culvert, but could offer no real solution.
I am also indebted to another of my constituents, Bruce Yorke, for the valuable historical information that he has been able to give me. He makes a reasonably convincing case that the county council might be responsible. I shall be happy to send the Minister a copy of his letter if that would be helpful.
What is the latest position? East Sussex county council has written to me this week and it says:
The County Council sought legal opinion in 1996 regarding responsibility for the culvert. This indicated that there was enough evidence to show that it was a public sewer and not the responsibility of the then Southern Water Authority.
The Environment Agency, in a note to me dated 11 June, denied that it is responsible and suggested that Southern Water should pick up the responsibility. But it also offered to work with various parties—Southern Water, the district and county councils—to share responsibility and clear the culvert.
However, Southern Water does not take that view. It says:
a Queen's Counsel has advised that the problem culvert is still a land drainage channel, probably the responsibility of the Environment Agency.
It concludes:
it would seem appropriate for Lewes District Council and East Sussex County Council to join in
efforts to solve this matter.
Meanwhile, the church continues to flood, most recently earlier this month. Not only has the church been affected; local residents have suffered too. One lady tells me that her property is now badly affected by damp and that her valuable grand piano is at risk.
The problem has gone on for at least six years, with continual flooding of an historic church, damage to other properties and numerous calls to East Sussex fire brigade, which has been superb, as always. Public money has been spent, not least as a result of all the fire brigade call-outs,


but six years on we still have no solution—not for technical reasons, but because of a demarcation dispute. We are little further on than we were in 1993.
This really must be sorted out. In the short term, will the Minister intervene to knock heads together and to require that the problem be solved without any further delay? I hope that he will do that. Let the parties argue afterwards about who should pay. My constituents have suffered long enough.
I have spent a long time on that specific example because I owe it to my constituents and because I suspect that if this is happening in Lewes, it must be happening elsewhere as well, and be a problem for other hon. Members.
I come now to the second and in some ways potentially even more serious problem which I raised during another hon. Member's Adjournment debate on 24 February 1999, since when nothing has happened to deal with the problem that I then identified for the House.
I refer to two connected issues in my constituency. The first is also in Lewes, also, as it happens, in Cliffe high street, albeit at the other end, and also caused by unsatisfactory and muddied lines of accountability and responsibility. It relates to the banks of the River Ouse, which flows through the centre of Lewes and which is marked in Lewes by the lovely Cliffe bridge.
The Environment Agency has identified work which needs to be undertaken urgently and has warned that if it is not done the river walls are at risk of collapsing. Those walls are right in the middle of town, abutting listed buildings. Were they to collapse, the effect would be serious, not just for the property owners but for the town itself.
I visited properties abutting the river on Monday in the company of Peter Midgely, the area manager of the Environment Agency. He impressed on me yet again his concern and that of the Environment Agency about the position.
The second matter relates to the sea defences at Seaford. That work has been undertaken every year by the Environment Agency, but this year it is not taking place. A press release issued by the Environment Agency on 9 December 1998, said:
essential maintenance will halt. The Agency will be unable to carry out work at Seaford which it considers is essential to the security of the Ouse Valley.
It is also essential to all those properties along Seaford sea front that have now been left defenceless and at the mercy of the waves.
The problem has arisen because the Environment Agency is the specialist body responsible for identifying works, but local flood defence committees fund them—or not, as in this case. So essential sea defence works at Seaford have simply been stopped. The start date of the works at Lewes, far from being accelerated because of the condition of the walls, were already late and now have been put back a further year.
In a letter dated 15 February, Lord De Ramsay, chairman of the Environment Agency, wrote:
We have an overall shortfall of some £4 million in the funding which flood defence committees have made available for 1999–2000 … Under current arrangements for funding flood defence the agency has no powers to interfere in the democratic process whereby Flood Defence Committees approve their levies.

So the Environment Agency blames the flood defence committees, while East Sussex county council, which supplies some of the committee's members, blames the Government and says that levies from external bodies should be ring-fenced and taken into account in the Government's funding and capping decisions. I hope that the Minister will address that point in his reply. That is a ludicrous arrangement. The Environment Agency has responsibility without power, while the flood defence committees have power without responsibility.
I shall repeat a point that I made on 24 February, to which the Minister on that occasion did not have time to respond. Either the flood defence committees should be abolished and their work passed to the Environment Agency, or they should take on the relevant responsibilities that rest with the agency. The present arrangements are a hotchpotch and do not work. There is also a need to clarify the respective powers of the Environment Agency, the county councils and the district councils. I spent some considerable time last year trying to sort out another flooding problem in my constituency, in Plumpton. It dragged on for far too long, mainly because of the unclear legal position of the three bodies involved.
However, I return to the problems in Lewes. What happens if the river wall collapses? Who is responsible? I raised this matter with John Crawford, chief executive of Lewes district council and a qualified lawyer. In a letter dated 1 March, he said:
It is still not clear to me what specific obligations arise if a local flood defence committee refuses to levy for the amount of money required to fulfil the Environment Agency's recommendation to them that certain works must be done to avoid flooding.
I hope that the Minister will deal with that point also.
The situation becomes even more complicated when private frontages are involved. Peter Midgely, Sussex area manager of the Environment Agency, wrote to me on 3 September 1998 about this matter. In respect of the position in Lewes, he wrote:
The necessity for flood defence in this area is clear, but the legal position is not.
If two such key people, both of whom I hold in high regard, are unclear about matters as basic as that, we have a mess—in terms of accountability, responsibility and legality. That mess threatens the basic river defences in the county town of East Sussex in the middle of my constituency, and all the listed buildings that abut that river. It is a mess that means that essential sea defence works are not being carried out at Seaford. A similar mess has allowed the St. Thomas à Becket church to flood regularly for six years. While the various bodies fiddle, Lewes floods.
There is a very clear role for the Government if they will take it. In the short term, they need to bang heads together and twist the arms of the various bodies to force them to do the work that has to be done and which can be done with no great technical problems. In the medium term, the lines of accountability and responsibility for flooding matters must be recast, so that the incidents that I have described cannot happen again.
I know that the Minister will respond sympathetically to the points that I have raised, and I hope that he will promise me some action.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. Elliot Morley): I congratulate the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on securing the debate and raising an important matter of concern to his constituents. I appreciate the problems that they have faced and shall try to deal with them.
It may help if I run through some general responsibilities. The Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has policy responsibility for flood defence—that is, measures to reduce the risk of flooding from rivers and the sea—and we provide substantial grants for approved capital projects. Responsibility for maintaining flood defences generally remains with those whose property fronts the river or the sea—a point relevant to Lewes. The defence does, after all, protect their property and if they gain the most benefit, it is difficult to see that the costs should be met by the taxpayer. That is one of the difficulties arising over ownership and responsibility.
In many areas, a more collective approach to flood and coastal defence has been adopted and responsibility for making and maintaining defences has been taken on by one of the flood defence operating authorities, particularly where defences provide benefit to the wider community. The largest operating authority is the Environment Agency, which may take on flood defence works on designated main rivers. Local authorities may act on ordinary watercourses, as may internal drainage boards where such bodies have been created in areas of special drainage need. However, in reply to the hon. Gentleman's point about legal responsibility, I must stress that flood defence legislation is permissive. There is no obligation on the operating authorities either to take on defences or to maintain them to a particular standard.
The Environment Agency is required to carry out its flood defence responsibilities through statutory regional or local flood defence committees. The committees are responsible for agreeing the programme of flood defence works to be carried out in their area, based on a business plan provided by the agency. The committees provide the majority of funding for the flood defence programme through levies on constituent local authorities. To reflect these funding arrangements, local authority representatives form a majority on flood defence committees.
I understand the hon. Gentleman's criticism of that system. However, the present arrangements contain an important measure of local democratic input, requiring those who represent the local community to determine appropriate levels of flood defence service and provide requisite funding. Nevertheless, in response to a recommendation in last year's report by the Select Committee on Agriculture on flood and coastal defence, MAFF and the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions are carrying out a joint review of the funding mechanisms. That will provide an opportunity to examine some of the hon. Gentleman's points and to see whether the current funding mechanism is appropriate, effective and delivering all that it is intended to. I regularly meet representatives of the Local Government Association and flood defence committee chairmen to discuss these matters, and I shall raise the hon. Gentleman's concerns, particularly over spending.
The hon. Gentleman discussed the blocked culvert in Cliffe high street. I understand the frustration that can be caused where problems with flooding are left unresolved

because of what may seem to be eternal wrangling between different bodies. The hon. Gentleman will understand, however, that those bodies are anxious not to incur expenditure that does not properly fall to them. I understand that a long culvert takes water run-off from various sources including roads, roofs and gardens. The culvert is prone to blocking and overflowing, particularly during storms.
Responsibility for maintaining the culvert is disputed, which, as the hon. Gentleman said, is the core problem. Without prejudice to the final resolution of where responsibility lies, or the possible need for longer-term work, the Environment Agency is attempting to put together a plan to clear the culvert, in partnership with Southern Water and local authorities. I welcome the agency's efforts and encourage others to support its initiative. I shall take a personal interest in the progress of the project.
The culvert probably goes back to Victorian times. Originally, it was maintained by the local commissioner for sewers—a grand-sounding title. He was the forerunner of the Environment Agency and, to some degree, of Southern Water and the local authorities. There was no clear transmission of responsibility when the various agencies were set up. There is anecdotal evidence of maintenance in the dim and distant past by the agency's predecessor, by the water company and by the local authority.
In theory, maintenance could be partly the responsibility of the owners of properties that lie above the culvert line, which confuses matters a little more. By accident of history, the culvert system has not been taken over by the agency, water company or local authority. Conflicting legal views about maintenance therefore remain to be resolved.
The main culvert is now badly silted and will not pass storm flood flows. After heavy rain, as the hon. Gentleman rightly said, there are floods, particularly around St. Thomas à Becket church. I understand that Southern Water is trying to alleviate the problem by temporary chamber pumping. The structural state and, indeed, parts of the culvert line are uncertain. However, as I said, without prejudice to the final resolution, the agency is putting together a jetting exercise to clear the culvert. The agency's partners will be Southern Water, which has agreed to the proposal, and possibly the local authority. The cost is estimated to be around £30,000. If the project goes ahead, work could commence quickly, which would certainly help the situation in the short term. In the longer term, the issues of ownership must be resolved.
The hon. Gentleman referred also to flood defence in Lewes generally. I explained the relationship between the Environment Agency, which develops business plans for flood defence, and the regional and local flood defence committees, which are responsible for determining the level of service and providing the funding. I explained also that maintaining flood defences generally remains the responsibility of riparian owners, unless that responsibility is taken over by an operating authority such as the Environment Agency. One of the problems in Lewes is that there is very little agency ownership of the town's walls and the buildings abutting them. The majority of them are in private, riparian ownership.
In setting its flood defence levy for the current year, the Sussex flood defence committee did not agree the full increase sought by the agency. As a result, the agency's business plan has had to be adjusted and the committee decided that the greatest priority should be given to sea defences. However, there are plans to carry out a strategy study of the flood defences in Lewes in 2001–02. Dependent on that, work on the town walls might start a year or two later. Funding of any such work will clearly be an issue for the local flood defence committee and may need to reflect the respective benefits of the work to the private owners of the town walls and to the wider community. Some contribution from private owners may therefore be appropriate.
The agency cannot normally maintain private frontages if, in a cost-benefit analysis, no clear benefits can be attributed to the wider community. There will therefore have to be an assessment of who will benefit from the work.
The hon. Gentleman referred to Seaford sea defences, which I know he is concerned about. He is right to say that funding by the Sussex flood defence committee this year has been insufficient to fund further work on recycling shingle. However, I can reassure him that the beach frontage is currently in good condition, and provision has been made for low-level maintenance such as reprofiling the beach. I accept that the Sussex flood defence committee will have to deal with that issue, and I emphasise that it must realise that it has responsibilities to the local community to fund such work. The standard spending assessment has been considerably increased in this financial year to assist local authorities with their levy.
I hope that I have given the hon. Gentleman an indication of what action is being taken. The issues are complicated by the confusion about ownership. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that no agency or local authority wants to commit expenditure when it is not absolutely clear that it is its responsibility to do so. Having said that, there are issues that need to be resolved,

and I have outlined the action that is being taken on those. I shall certainly raise with the chairs of the regional flood defence committees the wider funding issue, and I shall take an interest in the progress that is being made on raising the money for the work.

Mr. Baker: Will the Minister reply to my question about what will happen if a local flood defence committee refuses to levy for the amount of money required to fulfil the Environment Agency's recommendations that certain works must be done to avoid flooding?

Mr. Morley: I am not a legal expert on this point. I may have to take some advice on it and write to the hon. Gentleman in order to give him a definitive answer. I return to the point that flood defence powers are not statutory but permissive responsibilities. I therefore suspect that, if the funding that the Environment Agency considers necessary is not forthcoming, there are no legal powers to require such provision.
I would stress, however, that I am a great believer in local democracy. The hon. Gentleman has heard me say that before when debating the strategy for providing flood and coastal defence. I believe that local authorities have a very important role to play. On balance, the structure that involves local authorities in determining the level of service and raising funds towards financing it from a precept is the right one. If local authorities do not take their responsibilities seriously and reflect the needs of local people, whom they are ultimately supposed to serve and represent, the argument for a review of the operation of the funding and local authorities' role is strengthened.
As I have said, we have given a commitment to review the structure and funding in the light of the Select Committee report, and we will certainly give consideration to that.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at fourteen minutes to One o'clock.